www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-33378386
The fact he has kept his licence is incredible, but the reason given was the financial hardship it was cause him......so they fined him £150 for each offence?
Last edited by: mikeyb on Fri 3 Jul 15 at 12:52
|
|
One of his offences was 100mph in a 50 limit. Surely that on its own would merit an automatic ban. CPS should appeal this sentence in my opinion.
|
Hmmm... so the fear of losing his licence and subsequent financial hardship was enough in itself to precipitate a serious psychiatric reaction.
Looks like a pretty good reason to remove his licence until he is shown to be mentally stable again.
|
|
Here is my 5 quid that says he will be knicked again within 6 months maximum.
|
What a mockery of the idea of points. Why not just let him do whatever he wants if after 42 they won't remove his licence, then why bother giving him anymore?
He obviously knows he can cry the poor tale and do whatever he likes.
|
|
Bizarre doesn't begin to describe it. I have sat through many court cases where people have pleaded to keep their licences for fear of losing their jobs, usually with quite believable reasons, and I'm not sure I remember one where the request was successful.
|
Thought at first he'd reached 42 points via 'totting up' across several court appearances. In fact it seems he was on an offending spree last summer and there was just one trial covering multiple instances.
The BBC report lacks some background and is written in a way that makes it difficult to reconcile the number of offences. It refers to seven offences of which six related to being just over 30 in a 20 limit. But then there are TWO more; 100+ in a 50 and jumping a red. Were they all detected initially by cameras with Police Office involvement only after he failed to respond? The 42 points look to me like a bizzare result from application of sentencing guidelines.
The same effect would have been acheived if he'd got say 11 points which would probably have been the result before a less hidebound bench.
The nervous breakdown came after. Whether it affected his driving ability is a medical question If everybody who suffered such an incident were assumed to need their licence suspended and a reference to DSA medical the system would collapse. Only in the most serious, near psychotic, examples would that be justified. The majority involve more prosaic symptoms like constant tearfulness or 'hiding' in bed.
|
From our local paper:-
The speeding offences were:
109mph and 82mph in a 50mph limit area at Royal Artillery Way, Southend;
69mph and 59mph in a 50 mph zone on the A127 at Rayleigh;
55mph in a 40mph limit area on the A127 at Laindon
32mph in a 20mph limit at Marine Parade, Westcliff.
The seventh offence was driving through a red traffic signal on the A127 at Southend.
I know the area well the first and third sites are fixed Gatso sites and the others are average speed zones.
The first is a dual carriageway near where I live and there are two cameras, one in each direction, both just after, gentleish, bends and he did well to get past one at 109.
The second is the average camera zone between the Southend Borough boundary and almost to Basildon.
The third is in either direction just before the old Fortune of War roundabout, which is no longer a roundabout in that you can't turn right there but they left the roundabout there for fun..... The DoT say it's too expensive to remove and it's a 'feature' that breaks the monotony of the dual carriageway from the M25 to Southend.
The fourth site is, IMHO, the naughtiest. It is actually a 20mph average camera zone in the 'shared space' on Southend's Golden Mile and, depending on time of day and day of the week, could be absolutely crammed with people wandering about willy nilly.
The red light camera pick anyone of four.....
How he got away with this is beyond my comprehension, oh, and he gets to pay it off at £50 per month.....
|
And there's a picture of his car (Seat) in the newspaper going through one of the (many) speed cameras with his passenger leaning out of the window grinning at the camera. Which suggests it is all rather pre-meditated.
He should have no sympathy from the beak and should be taught a lesson by having his licence taken away. Surely given the new 'evidence' someone will appeal the leniency of the sentence?
|
There's a report in the Mail which puts the facts in a slightly different order/perspective.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148225/Driver-handed-42-points-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html
That report includes a quote from a neighbour saying McFarlane was 'very sick' at time of offences and that police 'took away his dog'. On those facts the breakdown was occurring at same time as the offences rather than after and the offences were perhaps a manifestation of his illness.
While not setting up as an amateur psychiatrist my personal and professional path over thirty or so years brought me into contact with rather too many cases of bi-polar disorder.
If it walks and quacks like a duck...........
We don't know what medical evidence was before the court. IF there was evidence of a bipolar episode AND he's now accepting treatment AND the medics say he's OK to drive then maybe, just maybe rehabilitation trumps a punishment that's just going to put him back on the treadmill.
OTOH the antecedents for bi-polar and recovery are not encouraging.
|
|
However you twist this, however you provide reasons for it, try and mitigate it, at the end of the day the bloke should have been banned. For a long while.
|
>> However you twist this, however you provide reasons for it, try and mitigate it, at
>> the end of the day the bloke should have been banned. For a long while.
>>
I'm not twisting, just trying to understand. So you ban him, he loses his job and income and descends into the all too common mental health spiral.
What good is done even in the pour encourager les autres sense?
|
>> What good is done even in the pour encourager les autres sense?
Oi!! Now stop it.
|
>>
>> >> What good is done even in the pour encourager les autres sense?
>>
>>
>> Oi!! Now stop it.
>>
Entre-nous only the Creme de la creme can get away with dropping French phrases into their postings because its rather Avant-garde.
It's so easy to make a Faux pas and make the whole thing look rather Deja-vu unless you have a Raison d'etre for it.
No point criticising it now though, because it’s a Fait accompli
Of course I manage to carry off this sort of thing Par excellence as I have the Savoir-faire and the Joie de vivre to make it work (and perhaps a little Je ne sais quoi)
|
Arthur Daley was rather partial to dropping the odd phrase, but the funniest moment ever had to be him and Terry trying to book into a French hotel and the following occurred;
"'Ere, Tel, what's French for "en suite"?
|
>> What good is done even in the pour encourager les autres sense?
>>
So all and sundry, the thick, stupid, ill or just criminal...know that if you're caught you have to take the consequences... just like the rest of us have to.
|
>> So all and sundry, the thick, stupid, ill or just criminal...know that if you're caught
>> you have to take the consequences... just like the rest of us have to.
As a London copper you too must have met your share of mentally ill. Do you really believe the 'take the consequences' thing works when dealing with the manic end of bi-polar episodes?
|
>> As a London copper you too must have met your share of mentally ill. Do
>> you really believe the 'take the consequences' thing works when dealing with the manic end
>> of
I did, sadly.
However it doesn't change my stance, because if you agreed that the manic end of bi-polar was a 'get out of jail free' there'd be a huge queue of bi-polar Ernest Saunders out there manipulating the system.
If someone on a manic episode drives really badly and gets a ban..then maybe, just maybe, there will be a little bit of something left for them to realise it isn't a good idea next time.. or they haven't got a car, because they got rid of it due to the last ban.
Meanwhile, the public are left safer. Who has the most rights in your world, the perpetrator (even with a mental illness) or the general public / individual victims?
|
>> However it doesn't change my stance, because if you agreed that the manic end of
>> bi-polar was a 'get out of jail free' there'd be a huge queue of bi-polar
>> Ernest Saunders out there manipulating the system.
Not a good example but like all these things Saunders case had detail. He displayed symptoms which were mis diagnosed as Alzheimers and he got out a month or three earlier than he might otherwise.
But viewed overall his case was a crap example of 'British' justice.
>> If someone on a manic episode drives really badly and gets a ban..then maybe, just
>> maybe, there will be a little bit of something left for them to realise it
The reality of bipolar is sadly different. If the courts use medical evidence properly it should be possible to identify the deserving but inevitably there will be miss-calls.
>> Meanwhile, the public are left safer. Who has the most rights in your world, the
>> perpetrator (even with a mental illness) or the general public / individual victims?
False dichotomy alert....
It's a balancing act. If guy in this case settles down and earns a legitimate wage then that's better than him bouncing off to sleeping in shop doorways. The key is to get folks to understand exceptions and the role of medical evidence.
Or we could let headline writers rule...
|
>> It's a balancing act. If guy in this case settles down and earns a legitimate
>> wage then that's better than him bouncing off to sleeping in shop doorways. The key
>> is to get folks to understand exceptions and the role of medical evidence.
>>
>> Or we could let headline writers rule...
>>
Or we could understand the scheisse some people will come out with to try to get off something in court, well aided by a system whereby the defence's aim is purely to get them off, that's their job... and there's a plethora of experts that for money will come and give evidence about virtually anything.. and he who pays the piper etc.
That's the system, courts hear hard luck stories every day, the vast majority of them are utterly false.
|
Between you and Bromp, I think that you point the way to the ideal solution.
>> and there's a plethora of experts that
>> for money will come and give evidence about virtually anything.. and he who pays the
>> piper etc.
I'm as appalled at this as you are. Everyone has the right to a fair trial and this includes stopping the clever little tricks of both the prosecution AND the defence.
Where Bromp's case is extremely strong in my view is that genuine cases of mental problems have to be dealt with sympathetically, and in such cases it can be counter productive to adopt the simple approach of seeking punishment or to "set an example" .
However the key word is "genuine". I WOULD apply the full force of the law to normal cases, and in fact make the punishment more severe for those found to be "trying it on".
The key thing is to be able to identify what is genuine and what is not. If we really wanted to we could do this, but there is no money or votes in it so we probably won't see it in our lifetimes.
|
>>courts hear hard luck stories every day, the vast majority of them are utterly false.
I am sure that is absolutely true. Which does rather make one wonder why they bit on this one.
The Magistrates or whatever are total planks who not only got conned by the defendant, but also failed to understand how it would be played by the press.
Or perhaps something that didn't get reported, or at least didn't get understood.
If I had to choose between the veracity of the BBC or the intelligence of someone I've never met, I'll go with the second.
|
>> I'm not twisting, just trying to understand. So you ban him, he loses his job
>> and income and descends into the all too common mental health spiral.
>>
>> What good is done even in the pour encourager les autres sense?
Well, at least someone else wont get killed while he rushes around at twice the legal limit jumping red lights. comprende vous?
|
Just to chuck a pebble in the limpid pond here...
I don't know any of the places but not one of those limit-ruptures is necessarily dangerous in itself. You'd have to be there to know.
Signalled a bike past today on the A420 and it gave a cool left-hand wave. It went past another car or two and the next time I saw it, a second or so later, it was a dot on the horizon. It had obviously gone up to 120 or so and back to a reasonable speed in that time. Chapeau I mean.
Motorbikes are unbelievably quick, but they scare me. Only for the brave.
|
>> Culo inteligente.
Who's that mikeyb? No one we know I can't help hoping... But I do like an ambiguous epithet poised between contempt and admiration.
|
>>
>> What good is done even in the pour encourager les autres sense?
>>
Removing a dangerous driver from the roads?
|
>There's a report in the Mail which puts the facts in a slightly different order/perspective.
>On those facts..
That post should be made a sticky.
Bromp posting a link to the DM as a source of "facts".
|
I'm a fairly sympathetic guy when it comes to mental health issues, but there is no way in which either medical sympathy, or logical application of the law makes this court disposal fair.
>> What good is done even in the pour encourager les autres sense?
Exactly the opposite: this now gives an obvious loophole to be exploited by scumbags and their lawyers.
How much would it cost this guy to taxi everywhere for 6-12 months? 5 grand? 10 grand?
Not an impossible amount of money and if he's that awesome an employee I'm sure his company would shill out for a driver.
109mph in a 50mph limit. This in itself would be an insta-ban. Add in the other offences and pally waving at the camera going through and there is no level of leniency that sees this guy stay on the roads in my opinion.
These offences were over a 2 month period - this was a period in which undoubdtedly he commited dozens of other motoring offences not camera'd.
"If you take away my licence I'll kill myself" should hold no water - anyone that unstable should NEVER be behind the wheel of a vehicle, especially once brought to the attention of a beak/magistrates.
And if the danger is a lesser outcome than suicide then so be it - life will go on after the ban period.
|
He does seem to be a reckless yob, and taking it in a big way. Perhaps this multiple speed bust will bring him to heel. Nevertheless he hasn't crashed or hurt anyone, perhaps more by good luck than good management.
Unless it's simply dangerous to exceed 100mph in any car at any time, I do take issue with the assertion that 109 in a 50 is necessarily dangerous. There are certainly stretches of 50 limit where the road, and the visibility, make it possible for an athletic car to exceed 100 for a short distance in total safety. I know some and you probably do as well Lygonos.
|
>> I do take issue with the assertion that 109 in a 50 is necessarily dangerous.
Absolutely, but the assertion is not one of danger - it's the sure knowledge that such a breach of the law = ban for us mortals.
|
>> >> I do take issue with the assertion that 109 in a 50 is necessarily
>> dangerous.
>>
>> Absolutely, but the assertion is not one of danger - it's the sure knowledge that
>> such a breach of the law = ban for us mortals.
109 in a 50 by a bloke who is also jumping red lights and hooning with his mates, is not dangerous its positively reckless.
|
>> 109 in a 50 by a bloke who is also jumping red lights and hooning
>> with his mates, is not dangerous its positively reckless.
And even if it wasn't, he can damn well suffer the same penalty as the other 99.999%.
|
>>And even if it wasn't, he can damn well suffer the same penalty as the other 99.999%.
Damn right.
There's no clause in the law which says "unless you think its safe".
|
>> Bizarre doesn't begin to describe it. I have sat through many court cases where people
>> have pleaded to keep their licences for fear of losing their jobs, usually with quite
>> believable reasons, and I'm not sure I remember one where the request was successful.
>>
You obviously missed a few cases. In 2014 there were over 7,300 drivers still on the road who had over 12 points. A Liverpool man had 45 points which is more that the guy under discussion. seems quite easy to avoid a ban if you know what to say.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25626147
|
Man with 42 points for keeps licence - Alastairw
