You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
....love her or loathe her she's in the news again for driving whilst disqualified, apparently drunk and on cocaine.
Why has the judge said if you go to the Priory for some rehab your sentence could be lighter, if she wasn't in the limelight she'd be doing porridge for a few months, would one of us mere plebs get the same treatment ?
She says she bankrupted- whos paying for her lawyers that are no doubt the best you can buy.
None of it makes sense.
Prison or not ?
These "Bankrupt celebrities"... they always have nice cars.
Last I heard she was driving round in a mobility scooter as she had been banned and had all her cars repossessed.
I wish she'd just get out of the situation she's in (I mean constant limelight/Z-list media attention) & find the time/space to sort her head out.
I feel sorry for her.
Rehab is a good idea and I don't know whether others in her situation (with the law) would get the same leniency.
It's hard to know from the outside and these things are never cut & dried.
Why the interest?
Leave her alone - she obviously needs help.
I can't understand why she's been nicked for driving drunk and while disqualified but not for the coke she freely admitted.
Why the interest?
Leave her alone – she obviously needs help.
Why ? I’m not saying she doesn’t need help, she clearly does.
She’s chosen the life to be a celeb…
I remember deliberately walking into a group of youngish guys who were walking behind her in Cyprus telling her to "get her tits out." She had a pram and a young boyfriend with her and it was the middle of the day. May be an element of making a rod for her own back but that sort of abuse/attention has to have an impact.
if she wasn’t in the limelight she’d be doing porridge for a few months
sentence hasn't been passed yet ? i presume she's copped for it straight away as her brief probably told her the court would look more favorably on her. the coke thing isn't possession the offense ?
She doesn't need leaving alone at all, she needs to stop being an arse.
That road is not far from me, and I use it often when I am on motorbike. She could have very easily killed someone - because she was "lonely".
Perhaps she does need help - she has had plenty of opportunity and a few near misses but continues as was ....
The judge is doing what they can based on the evidence put forward, if they believe that this action would provide benefit against any future issues then that's within their remit, same as they offer drug offenders lighter sentences if they go into a programme and so on.
I tend to see both sides of argument here, a lot of famous people get harsher treatment in courts, due to the media circus and spotlight put on the judge and CPS, so you can't really raise that going in her favour, as the judge is already getting it in the neck for offering something that is already widely used to attempt to reduce repeat offending.
I saw the article and just assumed she'd been out partying getting pissed and taking coke- I never realised she had "problems" or a problematic/addictive relationship with alcohol/drugs but I really wouldn't know.
I doubt she's getting any special treatment from the court specifically for being a celebrity to be honest, I expect the punishment is in line with what most people could expect if in a similar position to her with similar lawyers- celebrity or not.
Either way, I'm finding it difficult to have much sympathy for her. I've got a lot of sympathy for people with addiction problems or similar (if that's what she's got) but if you're going to repeatedly drive when under the influence or banned or whatever and crash when pissed out your face than you are kind of making it public business to be fair.
Why the interest?
Leave her alone – she obviously needs help.
Seriously? Would you be saying that if she'd just wiped out a member of your family whilst under the influence?
Why the interest?
Leave her alone – she obviously needs help.
Why ? I’m not saying she doesn’t need help, she clearly does.
She’s chosen the life to be a celeb…
As much as I find some of her actions and personality odious, I fall to Danny's point here. The one area of constant love in her life has been Harvey, and now's he's distanced from her and is calling for help which must be very difficult for her. She has financial issues, has recently suffered a home invasion and likely does not have a better half to support her honestly in the way he needs.
On the other hand, she appears to be a constant attention seeker which no doubt has led to a lot of the issues she's experienced. I don't excuse other's behaviour toward her within that sentence.
I'd say she doesn't need the Priory so much as long term support and help to manage her self esteem enough to get out of the limelight and help her manage a quiet life that doesn't have a constant interjection of public scrutiny or need for narcissist activity.
Seriously? Would you be saying that if she’d just wiped out a member of your family whilst under the influence?
Fortunately she didn't, and that does not excuse the behaviour but please don't judge someone with clear mental health issues on an imagined outcome.
Do you think she’ll sell us the rest of the petrol in her car’s tank?
I hope she sorts herself out, but can’t help but think if she was a single mum from a council estate caught drunk driving and a load of Charlie coursing through her there wouldn’t be any sympathy or asking for understanding!
Do you think she’ll sell us the rest of the petrol in her car’s tank?
Maybe not the petrol, but she'll probably try to sell us a book in few months time....
On the other hand, she appears to be a constant attention seeker which no doubt has led to a lot of the issues she’s experienced.
Or the other issues have led to her being an attention seeker?
I dunno, it's difficult with cases like this. It might be helpful to separate out "but she's a celebrity" because what's a celebrity really, other than someone you've heard of but probably never met. You may as well argue "yeah, but he chose to be a joiner!"
Courts should be fair and objective, it shouldn't make a difference that the accused is someone famous for having breasts. They should be sentencing her with the same punishment / support that you or I would be given.
Plenty of people have difficult lives and mental health issues, and manage to avoid getting into a car pissed and stoned out of their brains.
I'm sure any mitigating circumstances will be taken into account when sentencing her for driving whilst disqualified, with no insurance, and under the influence of drugs and alcohol, but tbh, she deserves a short custodial sentence.
Plenty of people have difficult lives and mental health issues, and manage to avoid getting into a car pissed and stoned out of their brains.
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.
Why the interest?
Leave her alone – she obviously needs help.
Happy to but she is a danger to the public and needs to be off the road. I think a spell in prison is appropriate.
it just doesn’t make it to mainstream media.
But it should make it to the courts.
Why has the judge said if you go to the Priory for some rehab your sentence could be lighter, if she wasn’t in the limelight she’d be doing porridge for a few months, would one of us mere plebs get the same treatment ?
Did they say that? I think she was allowed to go to the priory rather than being remanded pending sentencing, but you may have read something different. Certainly its not that unusual for someone who has just started a treatment programme to be given time to show its having a positive effect before sentencing. The unusual thing here is she commits an offence on tues and has a place lined up the next day - most of us relying on NHS/Social Work support would be waiting months to get any sort of treatment programme.
She says she bankrupted- whos paying for her lawyers that are no doubt the best you can buy.
I doubt her lawyer was anything special. He certainly wasn't reported as saying or doing anything unusual. He could even have been the "duty solicitor". He didn't say she was bankrupt, he said she was in the process of going bankrupt. Its not an instant thing. Presumably someone is paying for the Priory too?
Prison or not ?
that will be a decision for the bench in December when they will have more information. If they are considering sending to jail that will almost certainly be a social work background report. I'm sure the defence will bring background reports from the Priory or others. Given the nature of the offences a custodial sentence is certainly likely - but it won't be especially long (a year, out in 6months, perhaps a tag earlier?) and the prison service will do nothing for any addiction issues she has in that time and likely little work to prevent reoffending. So there IS an argument for not jailing if there is a credible alternative that actually has a realistic prospect of change. All sentences are supposed to achieve some mix of these elements:
A sentence aims to:
* Punish the offender – this can include going to prison, doing unpaid work in the community, obeying a curfew or paying a fine.
* Reduce crime – by preventing the offender from committing more crime and putting others off from committing similar offences.
* Reform and rehabilitate offenders – changing an offender’s behaviour to prevent future crime for example by requiring an offender to have treatment for drug addiction or alcohol abuse.
* Protect the public – from the offender and from the risk of more crimes being committed by them. This could be by putting them in prison, restricting their activities or supervision by probation.
* Make the offender give something back
You could clearly make a case that an electronic tag, a rehab programme, social work supervision to tackle the cause of the offending, a large fine (if she's not bankrupt) and unpaid work together with a prolonged driving ban actually achieve more of those things for longer than sending to jail. Defence solicitors all over the country make those sort of pleas for all sorts of people day in day out, usually for very low fees with a genuine interest in not only trying to help their client but avoiding bunging up prisons with people who will come out worse than they went in.
I hope she sorts herself out, but can’t help but think if she was a single mum from a council estate caught drunk driving and a load of Charlie coursing through her there wouldn’t be any sympathy or asking for understanding!
You may be partly right, but if she was a single mum from a council estate the court would generally still be hesitant to send her to jail and put the kid in care (I'm not sure if Katie Price has kids still at home but your example did). If reports were required then it would probably not be unusual to grant bail whilst those reports were prepared. That also means if jail is almost inevitable that the mother has a chance to make some arrangements that might be better than SW just turning up to take a kid into care.
Of course, the corollary is that if she was someone "anonymous" from a council estate that after she's served her punishment she will be able to go back to normal life. This is probably not going to help get her life back on track (actually jail time might - there's a book in that!)
But it should make it to the courts.
That would be for the prosecution service to decide and Katie Price appeared at Crawley Magistrates’ Court yesterday.
but it won’t be especially long (a year, out in 6months, perhaps a tag earlier?)
I think six months is the maximum for drunk driving, so even with aggravating factors - drugs - something like 12 weeks, out in six, would still be considered a fairly hefty sentence.
I hope she sorts herself out, but can’t help but think if she was a single mum from a council estate caught drunk driving and a load of Charlie coursing through her there wouldn’t be any sympathy or asking for understanding!
Just read the court section of your local newspaper to depress yourself over what sentences people actually get
One of the oddly celebrity obsessed blokes at work was looking at this yesterday, this is currently her third driving ban. It's one thing being able to afford a nice car when you're apparently bankrupt, but how the hell does she get insurance?!
, if she wasn’t in the limelight she’d be doing porridge for a few months,
Highly unlikely. If you watch the Traffic Cops type programmes, you'll see very few people get sent down for drink/drug driving offences. Rightly or wrongly.
She appears to have mental health/drug issues. Not sure prison will resolve those for her, and an overcrowded prison system probably needs that bed for someone else.
but how the hell does she get insurance?!
She's saving a fortune on that by virtue of being banned and not able to get any.
Highly unlikely. If you watch the Traffic Cops type programmes, you’ll see very few people get sent down for drink/drug driving offences. Rightly or wrongly.
Has to come a point where going to prison is the only real course of action to prevent someone who knows they are banned and uninsured from getting behind the wheel anyway.
Just read the court section of your local newspaper to depress yourself over what sentences people actually get
Big-n-daft are you still living in the 80s?
A local newspaper? With a court section?
Has to come a point where going to prison is the only real course of action to prevent someone who knows they are banned and uninsured from getting behind the wheel anyway.
I agree, but a second offence isn't usually it.
She’s saving a fortune on that by virtue of being banned and not able to get any.
Hahaha.
She's a troubled individual, and has been for years, but I doubt she'll get any favourable treatment for being a faded celeb.
She's almost the personification of the noughties celeb culture craze - in both the perceived shallowness of her achievements and her subsequent fall from grace.
I've never met her, but have worked on projects involving her. Apparently she's very Ronseal, and I don't just mean the fake tan. What you see is what you get, and it might be a bit crude.
Hope justice is served, and it might give her a kick up the arse to make some positive changes.
the thing is though, there are regular articles in the local rag about some toe-rag who's finally been banged up for killing or injuring someone whilst drunk/no insurance etc, and very often it's the latest in a string of driving offences which seem to have not been taken seriously at all. Can't help but think that if the 1st or 2nd offences are cracked down on hard, the deaths or injuries might be avoided.I agree, but a second offence isn’t usually it.
Tony Adams got 4 months (serving 2) for crashing his car into a wall 4x over the limit. Think he had a license at the time.
Cursory internet trawling following a comment above, shows she’s been banned six times previously. She’s has to be fairly close to the cusp for a custodial now - banned, drunk, drugged all seem to be a lot of aggravating factors for sentencing.
She’s a single mum, with a special needs child and mental health issues who’s just suffered the ‘trauma’ of a home invasion, she’ll not do a day despite her previous form.
I doubt sending her to prison is going to help her, probably just make hers and others' lives worse long term and cost the taxpayer loads of £££s
Speculating about sentencing etc is a fools errand really. You don't have all the context or knowledge of the law etc
no, it might well save someone else's life though when she inevitably does this again despite being banned for the nth time!I doubt sending her to prison is going to help her
I have a little compassion for her as she has obviously made some poor choices and has issues with drink and drugs.
However, i've no sympathy whatsoever re-drink/drug driving - i hope she gets treated the same as anyone else who's charged with that - which probably means a few weeks in the big house.
Shocking fall from grace as she was apparently worth millions a few years ago from property and book deals.
She can get help whilst doing porridge and then any kids she's got can go and be looked after properly (she clearly cant).
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)
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"
All publicity is good for her.
Hmm, not sure, I think this might be the case that proves the 'no such thing as bad publicity' theory wrong!
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.
Oh, mysterious girl.
I'd forgotten about her.
Bollocks, this thread has now spoiled my day.
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.
She seriously needs help and left alone to sort out her life but the media will never allow it.
That and an ankle tag that stops cars starting with her in it.
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.