Adem, of Devereux Place, Colchester, admitted driving without due care and attention, at Colchester Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, and had six points added to his licence.And the reason?
He already has six points on his licence for speeding and talking on his mobile, but was not disqualified.
Well, it seems the judge was concerned that a businessman shouldn't be unduly penalised by the courts:
District Judge David Cooper said: “Bearing in mind all the circumstances, I am satisfied it would cause you exceptional hardship.I don't know, judge. I don't think it's going to unduly extend Gordon Brown's recession if the Fashion Bar, in St Botolphs Street, Colchester, goes under, is it?
“It would more or less destroy your business.”
8 comments:
Maybe it's the only decent bar on Colchester?...
“It would more or less destroy your business.”
Erm, isn't that what we would call 'the consequences of your actions' ?
As a businessman allegedly dependent on his vehicle he should know better than to drive like a tit while already carrying six points, surely ?
Um... What is it about this case that does not apply to everyone with a business or a job? (You don't actually need a driving license to run a bar!)
"Maybe it's the only decent bar on Colchester?"
I've been there - it's pretty well supplied with tacky nightspots. Some might say, over-supplied...
"Erm, isn't that what we would call 'the consequences of your actions' ?"
Yes. But we seem to think consequences are a bad thing lately...
"Um... What is it about this case that does not apply to everyone with a business or a job?"
Absolutely nothing, from what I can see...
...a passer-by had reported hearing the woman’s husband warning her not to cross the road.
This is pretty important. Roads often have vehicle traffic on them and pedestrians have a responsibility to themselves to check that it's safe before entering the road. The fact that someone told her it wasn't puts a lot of the responsibility in her own lap. Sure, he was speeding, though I feel that speeding in itself is a victimless crime - what the driver did wrong was to be inattentive (as per the charge), but can't the same be said of the pedestrian? Let me put it another way, say I go for a swim and get eaten by a shark, having earlier ignored a warning that a fucking black triangular fin had been seen off the beach earlier. I had he opportunity to not be eaten simply by staying on the beach, and that's before considering that I was warned about the shark sighting. The RTC in Colchester is obviously different in that neither party would want there to be an accident while I'm the only one out of me and the shark who thinks it should skip lunch, but all the same the point remains that the pedestrian seems partly culpable since the court seems to have taken it into account:
District Judge David Cooper said: “Bearing in mind all the circumstances, I am satisfied it would cause you exceptional hardship.
If it had been 100% the driver perhaps the judge might have felt exceptional hardship and the loss of his business was about what he deserved, though even then that would punish the guy's employees as well. Presumably they all had nothing to do with it - would it be justice to have several innocent people lose their jobs solely because they work for someone who drive's like a twat? Bit harsh in my view. For fake charities like Brake no punishment will be enough, and maybe the money was a little soft but we don't really know enough to tell. Overall I reckon the judge probably called this one about right.
I've hit twelve points in my dim and distant past. The only reason I didn't get banned was I was deploying to Bosnia the week after the court case and so needed a license to drive.
Good days...
Dangermouse
"Overall I reckon the judge probably called this one about right."
If he'd had a clean license, I might have agreed with you.
Proves that not only politicians escape Justice
Post a Comment