This kinda thing really annoys me...... Freddie Flintoff

It isn't just celebs who get this sort of treatment. I deal with about one person a month who has 12 or more points on their licence, funnily enough about half of them are lorry drivers. A friend of mine went to crown court about ten days ago to appeal his ban in the same circumstances as Freddie. In his case he doesn't do charity work, but does drive 60k miles per year as a director of a nationwide company. He had the same result as Freddie did. I think the courts take a practical view in these things and deal with them well. In my friend's case to be chauffeured around for 6 months was going to cost him £66k:eek:.
 
Wookee said:
It isn't just celebs who get this sort of treatment. I deal with about one person a month who has 12 or more points on their licence, funnily enough about half of them are lorry drivers. A friend of mine went to crown court about ten days ago to appeal his ban in the same circumstances as Freddie. In his case he doesn't do charity work, but does drive 60k miles per year as a director of a nationwide company. He had the same result as Freddie did. I think the courts take a practical view in these things and deal with them well. In my friend's case to be chauffeured around for 6 months was going to cost him £66k:eek:.
Click to expand...

How did he build up 12 points in the first place,so he seem the sought of person who doesn't care about the consequence of his actions,he know whatever he does he going to say wasn't my fault, he chose to do whatever did to build up the 12pts :(
 
Wookee said:
It isn't just celebs who get this sort of treatment. I deal with about one person a month who has 12 or more points on their licence, funnily enough about half of them are lorry drivers. A friend of mine went to crown court about ten days ago to appeal his ban in the same circumstances as Freddie. In his case he doesn't do charity work, but does drive 60k miles per year as a director of a nationwide company. He had the same result as Freddie did. I think the courts take a practical view in these things and deal with them well. In my friend's case to be chauffeured around for 6 months was going to cost him £66k:eek:.
Click to expand...

I really wouldn't have given a rat's what it would cost him.
Perhaps he should have thought of that.
 
Wookee said:
It isn't just celebs who get this sort of treatment. I deal with about one person a month who has 12 or more points on their licence, funnily enough about half of them are lorry drivers. A friend of mine went to crown court about ten days ago to appeal his ban in the same circumstances as Freddie. In his case he doesn't do charity work, but does drive 60k miles per year as a director of a nationwide company. He had the same result as Freddie did. I think the courts take a practical view in these things and deal with them well. In my friend's case to be chauffeured around for 6 months was going to cost him £66k:eek:.
Click to expand...

I've been a courier since 1990 , travelling 80,000 miles a year for the first 10 years, then about 40,000 for the last 14

In 1996 I got 4 points for speeding in roadworks at preston, I'd driven back from Glasgow at 70mph , entered the roadworks at 50mph which were about 6-7 miles long, in the centre was a 2 mile section where they'd finished the roadworks but hadn't lifted the restriction.

I thought it'd gone back to 70 so accelerated to what I thought was the limit, saw the cop car, didn't even look twice at it, then I got the ticket.

I've had a clean licence since that date, because I stick to the speed limit, it sounds to me like he'll be banned again as soon as he gets behind the wheel as it's pretty obvious he can't or doesn't

Bottom line is you get 2 or 3 chances before you get a ban, that should be warning enough
 
ST4 is a bit quiet on this thread.
 
Wookee said:
It isn't just celebs who get this sort of treatment. I deal with about one person a month who has 12 or more points on their licence, funnily enough about half of them are lorry drivers. A friend of mine went to crown court about ten days ago to appeal his ban in the same circumstances as Freddie. In his case he doesn't do charity work, but does drive 60k miles per year as a director of a nationwide company. He had the same result as Freddie did. I think the courts take a practical view in these things and deal with them well. In my friend's case to be chauffeured around for 6 months was going to cost him £66k:eek:.
Click to expand...


£66,000 for 6 months wages for a chauffeur? Sorry but I cry BS on this one.
 
87mph isn't that high, and the exceptional harship is a valid defence to retain the licence. Charity work is something a lot will use to retain their licence, or they have disabled relatives, work depends on the use of car. Nothing new there. It's a fairly standard mitigation to remove the ban.

I don't see what the big deal is. Who cares, does it effect you whether he is banned or not. It does't effect me. He's been told he can't use the same defence again, so all he has is one more bite of the cherry before he's booted off.

A company director would also plea undue hardship, a typical defence being they need their car for work and as they employ others, its unfair on the others if they lose their jobs due to their boss being unable to compete in the market place. Similar for people who drive for work, loss of job is unduly hard for getting 4 tickets in 2 years. It's perfectly fair.

Naturally I think you should be given suspended bans a little like crims get suspended jail sentences, and be allowed 24 points in 2 years before facing court, but thats me.

God I love these threads.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
Same rule for all.
All you need us the means to hire the right lawyer.
Click to expand...


It clearly is NOT the same rule for all, if you get preferential treatment for being famous and rich.
He should be banned and have to make do with public transport or taxis - I am sure that he could afford it.
 
Does the poor soul not have cruise control on his car ?

Even I have that and I do use it particularly when on a motorway at 8.30 on Sunday mornings when it would be very very easy to go over 70 .

Sorry - I've not a lot of sympathy for him
 
Pe
camerassassin said:
Does the poor soul not have cruise control on his car ?

Even I have that and I do use it particularly when on a motorway at 8.30 on Sunday mornings when it would be very very easy to go over 70 .

Sorry - I've not a lot of sympathy for him
Click to expand...
Perhaps he was accelerating at the time. It's fairly easy to accelerate past the speed limit from slip roads etc. when trying to merge with the traffic.
 
fabs said:
How has he had preferential treatment?
Click to expand...


Because many "ordinary" people would have found themselves banned for accumulating more than 12 points, and it is a well known fact that celebrities routinely get more lenient sentences than the man in the street.
Of course, if you wish then you can disagree with this, and continue to believe that fame and money makes no difference to how you are treated by the law/judiciary.
Jimmy Carr is one such celebrity who boasted about getting away with using a mobile phone whilst driving.
 
andy700 said:
Because many "ordinary" people would have found themselves banned for accumulating more than 12 points, and it is a well known fact that celebrities routinely get more lenient sentences than the man in the street.
Of course, if you wish then you can disagree with this, and continue to believe that fame and money makes no difference to how you are treated by the law/judiciary.
Jimmy Carr is one such celebrity who boasted about getting away with using a mobile phone whilst driving.
Click to expand...

They can also probably afford the best representation to exploit the undue hardship part.

Re cruise control being fitted, standard on a Bentley but not much good if its set to 90mph (indicated). 87mph true is probably 90 on the speedo.

I've travelled the 6 loads of times, on the Northern section everything bar lorries pass you at 70. Most drive 80-90mph
 
andy700 said:
Because many "ordinary" people would have found themselves banned for accumulating more than 12 points, and it is a well known fact that celebrities routinely get more lenient sentences than the man in the street.
Of course, if you wish then you can disagree with this, and continue to believe that fame and money makes no difference to how you are treated by the law/judiciary.
Jimmy Carr is one such celebrity who boasted about getting away with using a mobile phone whilst driving.
Click to expand...

Many ordinary people also get the same treatment as Flintoff if they can plead mitigating circumstances. It seems that, if a celebrity receives lenience, people see to think that it can only be because they're a celebrity.
 
fabs said:
Many ordinary people also get the same treatment as Flintoff if they can plead mitigating circumstances. It seems that, if a celebrity receives lenience, people see to think that it can only be because they're a celebrity.
Click to expand...

Correct. Too many jealous people in this thread methinks. About 8 years ago I had a rep who got to 12 or 14 points. My best rep by a country mile, so a letter from the company saying he would lose his job and have knock on effect on company meant he had a bigger fine instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
It's always the same in these threads: the same cry babies wail over a minor infraction of the law scream wolf as if it's the worse thing thats happened since the outbreak of WWII.

Someone got done speeding and got a different punishment due to certain circumstances. Big deal.
 
andy700 said:
It clearly is NOT the same rule for all, if you get preferential treatment for being famous and rich.
He should be banned and have to make do with public transport or taxis - I am sure that he could afford it.
Click to expand...

He got off because he bought the best representation to put forth his case. Anyone is free to do so.
 
cambsno said:
Correct. Too many jealous people in this thread methinks. About 8 years ago I had a rep who got to 12 or 14 points. My best rep by a country mile, so a letter from the company saying he would lose his job and have knock on effect on company meant he had a bigger fine instead.
Click to expand...

No not jealous,but people who think their people need to take the consequence for their actions,you say he was your best rep at what line in the sand would you have kept him on if he had broken any other law ?
 
simonblue said:
But can anybody afford those legal bills ?
Click to expand...

I don't know. But it doesn't make for preferential treatment from the bench.

Finding a bloody good lawyer is a process open to absolutely everyone. Paying for it is their own problem...and if they think they won't be able to afford it...maybe taking their foot off the accelerator when they reach six point might help :-)

And how do you think these lawyers got so expensive? They all started out the same way. Not all good lawyers are expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
simonblue said:
But can anybody afford those legal bills ?
Click to expand...

Your point is what.

The law is equal and sentencing guidelines given to judges are the same. The law is equal.

Whether or not an expensive lawyer can yield better results for defendants...well probably, that's why they cost more as the achieve better results for their clients than a poorer/cheaper lawyer - in most cases. Like a nice car/house costs more than a crap one.

Money has to buy something, better services, better possession, better education for your kids, better healthcare for you, otherwise, whats the point in making it and having it.
 
Remember, one of the cornerstones of our law is you are entitled to a defense and you are free to choose your defense. There's nothing sinister here. Just someone who could afford a specialist defense to plead out a case (a pretty non event one) to a judge.
 
cambsno said:
Correct. Too many jealous people in this thread methinks. About 8 years ago I had a rep who got to 12 or 14 points. My best rep by a country mile, so a letter from the company saying he would lose his job and have knock on effect on company meant he had a bigger fine instead.
Click to expand...

Somebody with 12-14 points deserves a ban and to lose his job because it's obvious he doesn't give a monkeys about the speed limit at all, speeding is a daily occurrence for him if he's been caught 4 times.

Good job I wasn't the magistrate as my view would have been he's had 3 chances, as have you as a company to slow him down.

6 points on your licence should be enough warning, 9 is drive on tippy toes or else no job, not 9 and please don't take my licence away, OK cart on

I see people speeding in town every day, all it does is get you to the next set of lights 30 seconds quicker, utterly pointless
 
wack61 said:
Somebody with 12-14 points deserves a ban and to lose his job because it's obvious he doesn't give a monkeys about the speed limit at all, speeding is a daily occurrence for him if he's been caught 4 times.

Good job I wasn't the magistrate as my view would have been he's had 3 chances, as have you as a company to slow him down.

6 points on your licence should be enough warning, 9 is drive on tippy toes or else no job, not 9 and please don't take my licence away, OK cart on

I see people speeding in town every day, all it does is get you to the next set of lights 30 seconds quicker, utterly pointless
Click to expand...
Spot on mate.
 
wack61 said:
Somebody with 12-14 points deserves a ban and to lose his job because it's obvious he doesn't give a monkeys about the speed limit at all, speeding is a daily occurrence for him if he's been caught 4 times.

Good job I wasn't the magistrate as my view would have been he's had 3 chances, as have you as a company to slow him down.

6 points on your licence should be enough warning, 9 is drive on tippy toes or else no job, not 9 and please don't take my licence away, OK cart on

I see people speeding in town every day, all it does is get you to the next set of lights 30 seconds quicker, utterly pointless
Click to expand...

Are you legally qualified or have a legal background?

Exceptional hardship is a perfectly legitimate factor to plead to a sentence.

He's probably got a bigger fine or something. More useful to the public coffer than putting him and his delightful Bentley off the road for a bit.

He'll also have 12 points on his licence, that sticks for 3 years, a ban wouldn't last that long and after a ban, the licence comes back squeaky clean, this will ensure he has a full endorsed licence for longer, hopefully sedating his right foot for longer.

Also, what has speeding in town got to do with 87mph on a motorway. That sort of speed on a long journey really does save a chunk of time. Usually about 90mins driving from London to Glasgow.
 
Last edited:
That is not the point Darren was making Steve.

If anybody is stupid enough to drive in such a fashion that they accumulate 12 points on thier license, then they should damned well be banned. If hardship ensues, then so be it, they should have thought about those hardships whilst on 6 points.
 
fracster said:
That is not the point Darren was making Steve.

If anybody is stupid enough to drive in such a fashion that they accumulate 12 points on thier license, then they should damned well be banned. If hardship ensues, then so be it, they should have thought about those hardships whilst on 6 points.
Click to expand...

There are cases though, where the hardship due to the loss of licence effects others.

Namely the effect on

1. Employment - the courts aren't in the business of putting people on the dole and putting a family that depends on someones income onto the streets and into food banks. Its too severe for a series of minor traffic offences.
2. Disabled dependents - is it fair to deprive other dependents with disabilitiees the transport they get from the said driver. My view is it isn't fair to punish someone else for someones series of minor traffic offences.
3. Employee's: Someones boss might to drive to secure contracts for a company. Loss of their transport, loss of others jobs. Is it fair for the courts to inflict a ban that effects others employment. My view is it is not for a series of minor traffic offences.
4. Charity work. Some do charity work. Is it fair to cut that charity work off by ensuring the person cannot get to their charitible place. (dubious I know)

I know of a Doctor, he got 12 points, he needed his car to visit patients in the country. Despite his accumilation of points, putting him out of work, and depriving others of a doctor they new and trusted was too severe an outcome. Hence they just fined him loads.

Indeed 12 points normally lead to a ban, but not always if special circumstances can be heard.

I don't know enough about Flintoffs charity work to know whether its really worth NOT banning him for and how much was bigged up to the judge to favour a different punishment. Personally, I am not bothered, whether he drives or not has no huge bearing on my life. What is interesting is the view that it is because he is famous that is why he got off. I have enough faith in the Judges for that not to the be the case, but the case being his lawyer argued well enough Flintoffs use of his car was essential to maintain good charitible work and get him to and from voulteering blah blah blah.
 
Last edited:
fracster said:
That is not the point Darren was making Steve.

If anybody is stupid enough to drive in such a fashion that they accumulate 12 points on thier license, then they should damned well be banned. If hardship ensues, then so be it, they should have thought about those hardships whilst on 6 points.
Click to expand...

I agree.
How many offenses give you three pain free chances to cease making the decision to have your license removed?
No one breaks the speed limit because they're addicted.
No one does it because they're short of money and fallen on hard times.
It's a personal choice.
 
Steve every example you just cited makes it even worse that the person chose to speed.
It makes them not only stupid, but also incredibly selfish.
 
viv1969 said:
I agree.
How many offenses give you three pain free chances to cease making the decision to have your license removed?
No one breaks the speed limit because they're addicted.
No one does it because they're short of money and fallen on hard times.
It's a personal choice.
Click to expand...

Quite, and three is a warning. But given they are all assumably relatively minor (87mph in a 70mph is minor, its only an SP50) and no serious Dangerous, careless, undue care, drink drive, 4 sets of points in 2-5 years isn't that high.

It's a harmless crime (otherwise more severe convictions would be applied) so I am ok with the punishment.

Given that the 12 points will linger longer on his licence than a ban, then a new clean licence with 12 points to get all over again, and the final warning from the judge, the punishment is fine.

The lawyer must have put a good case forward for him to keep it, as this is not the norm. Lets all be thankful for the charity he does do
 
viv1969 said:
Steve every example you just cited makes it even worse that the person chose to speed.
It makes them not only stupid, but also incredibly selfish.
Click to expand...

In one sense, I actually agree with you. But given minor speeding is an everyday occurrence on our roads (sub 100mph and under 30mph over each limit) is really inflicting such pentalities so uniformly appropriate.

Given the cases I posted above, do you really think that if someone is a bit silly in a car, their disabled children should be deprived transport, or someone else lose their job. Its just too much, IMHO.

The stupidly aspect is hopefully reflected in the fine.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
There are cases ..not quoting all of your post Steve....
Click to expand...

It matters not one jot about any hardships that occur due to any driver being stupid enough to amass 12 points.

Surely,anyone with half a wit, would slow down and drive accordingly when on six points,even more so on nine.

I know we are not going to agree Steve, but surely you see the point that a bit more planning and driving more sensibly when on fewer points would make sense if one is to endure any sort of hardship if banned?
 
Three is a warning....and four an outright self made decision to surrender your licence unless well represented.
 
fracster said:
I know we are not going to agree Steve, but surely you see the point that a bit more planning and driving more sensibly when on fewer points would make sense if one is to endure any sort of hardship if banned?
Click to expand...

Of course I do. But in the event of someone being a goof, I just can't see how its fair their disabled dependents/employee's who have no control or input into their driving should lose their transport. IMHO, its just too much of a fall out. To me, the fall out, does matter due to the hardships given if they are undue.

Noone, not even I, am saying that driving 87mph on 9 points is at all smart but the judge must have had his reasons to give him one more chance.

Did you know after a ban >56 days you get a clean licence back. An endorsement stays on for a lot longer. He's not getting another chance.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
Three is a warning....and four an outright self made decision to surrender your licence unless well represented.
Click to expand...

Even the best representation can do nothing if an undue hardship case is unavailable. A lawyer cannot invent a charity, disabled kids, employment requiring a car and other peoples employment depending on your need to drive. They can only present what they have to work with; trust me ;)
 
So Steve...let's say our driver amassed 12 points, but is not awarded a ban because of little disabled Johnny/Jane.
How many more times is the/she allowed to offend after that? How many points is too many?
 
viv1969 said:
So Steve...let's say our driver amassed 12 points, but is not awarded a ban because of little disabled Johnny/Jane.
How many more times is the/she allowed to offend after that? How many points is too many?
Click to expand...

I know of one driver that never had been banned yet would have normally been nearly twice over. He's the sole bread winner, is a self employed IT contractor who needs his car to get to various business parks where his clients are, and he has a disabled child. He shouldn't IMHO ever be deprived the use of a car, no matter what, IMHO.

12points isn't an automatic ban, its a court appearance where a ban may be issued. More often or not it is.

I notice by >56 ban and clean licence timescales against an endorsement that's stuck for 4yrs or whatever has been ignored too.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
I know of one driver that never had been banned yet would have normally been nearly twice over. He's the sole bread winner, is a self employed IT contractor who needs his car to get to various business parks where his clients are, He's a tw@t and he has a disabled child. He shouldn't IMHO ever be deprived the use of a car, no matter what, IMHO.

12points isn't an automatic ban, its a court appearance where a ban may be issued. More often or not it is.

I notice by >56 ban and clean licence timescales against an endorsement that's stuck for 4yrs or whatever has been ignored too.
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top