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

[viv1969]

Yep 4 days in a row at 4am on the M6. Yes he saw the signs. Yes he's admitted to speeding. However he had bought the car 3 days before at auction and looks like someone in its past has attempted to clock its mileage back causing a substantial under-read of speed.

Four consecutive days.
He has admitted he knew he was speeding.
Anything after that is immaterial. As a defence it might work after one incident, (if that incident pushed him to 12 points) but four is just stupidity.

 

[Yves Geza]

So Flintoff is a bit arrogant, he's self interested and a risk taker still to speed with 9 points on his licence! Sounds like a professional sportsman to me! Those are surely the exact mental attitudes we revere from the stands! Why we've heard of him and why he can afford a Bentley and a QC!

As for his crime. Are people truly offended by speeding? I'm offended by assaults and harm and thefts and public affray but I'm not offended by another driver ignoring an arbitrary number - which is all a speed limit actually is. As I've posted before, driving past a school at 3pm in the wet at 27mph is legal but infinitely less safe than driving past the same school at 37mph at 3am in the dry! I don't respect dangerous driving but that's not the same as speeding.

Equally here's a question for all the anti speeding brigade. If you stood on a motorway bridge and watched as a Bentley whooshed beneath you, just one car on its own, could you honestly, accurately say whether it was doing 69mph or 87mph? I think I'd probably struggle and I used to spend a lot of time watching cars drive past me and trying to identify their exact speed. Indeed att one time I was paid to do it!

I really don't feel envious or outraged that he wasn't banned from driving.

 

[SFTPhotography]

No. but as you know @Yves Geza speeding is the worse thing you can possibly do. What if a child is playing football at the side of the motorway. I say hang him.....

 

[Marc]

No. but as you know @Yves Geza speeding is the worse thing you can possibly do. What if a child is playing football at the side of the motorway. I say hang him.....

Bit harsh to hang a child for playing football, public flogging would be enough surely?

 

[mattyg]

Four consecutive days.
He has admitted he knew he was speeding.
Anything after that is immaterial. As a defence it might work after one incident, (if that incident pushed him to 12 points) but four is just stupidity.

No He's admitting to speeding. NOT knowing he was speading. Go read it again.
His speedo was under reading. Hence he was speeding. The only reason he knows he was speeding is because 4 letters dropped through his door.

So he's admitted to speeding as he was speeding, Hence the speeding tickets. He didn't know he was speeding as his speedo was not showing his true (or near as dammit) speed.

Just in case you don't understand.
Avg speed cameras don't have the ability to pull you over and issue you with a NIP. What happens is within 14 days you receive a letter telling you that you have been caught speeding.

So within 14 days of the first instance he should receive a letter. so that leaves tues, wed and thurs. WHEN HE STILL DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE SPEEDO

 

[mattyg]

s***e post

Worst I've read on here in ages.

A: You need to read some more posts

B: Tongue in cheek

C: Why? Because thats exactly how things would have happened. You changing the speed at which you drove down that road would NOT have changed the actions of the toddler. The Toddler wouldn't have ran out at an earlier time because you were traveling at a faster speed. Unless you believe our fates are already set out for us. But even in that case the toddler would have ran out at earlier but you would have seen him from a greater distance and still would have managed to stop.

 

[viv1969]

No He's admitting to speeding. NOT knowing he was speading. Go read it again.
His speedo was under reading. Hence he was speeding. The only reason he knows he was speeding is because 4 letters dropped through his door.

So he's admitted to speeding as he was speeding, Hence the speeding tickets. He didn't know he was speeding as his speedo was not showing his true (or near as dammit) speed.

Just in case you don't understand.
Avg speed cameras don't have the ability to pull you over and issue you with a NIP. What happens is within 14 days you receive a letter telling you that you have been caught speeding.

So within 14 days of the first instance he should receive a letter. so that leaves tues, wed and thurs. WHEN HE STILL DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE SPEEDO

Feel better getting that off your chest there Sparky?

 

[mattyg]

Feel better getting that off your chest there Sparky?

Yeah a little.

I have a device in my pocket capable of accessing the entirety of human knowledge. I use it to argue with strangers and look at pictures of cats

 

[cambsno]

A: You need to read some more posts

B: Tongue in cheek

C: Why? Because thats exactly how things would have happened. You changing the speed at which you drove down that road would NOT have changed the actions of the toddler. The Toddler wouldn't have ran out at an earlier time because you were traveling at a faster speed. Unless you believe our fates are already set out for us. But even in that case the toddler would have ran out at earlier but you would have seen him from a greater distance and still would have managed to stop.

A little bit tongue in cheek but roads are for cars and the like, not people. Yes cars should not drive at silly speeds in built up areas but people need to take responsibility and teach kids road sense.

 

[viv1969]

Yeah a little.

I have a device in my pocket capable of accessing the entirety of human knowledge. I use it to argue with strangers and look at pictures of cats

Well the cat thing is a given.
No decent piece of tech exists that doesn't have kitten capability

 

[SFTPhotography]

Well the cat thing is a given.
No decent piece of tech exists that doesn't have kitten capability

I thought you were a dog person?

 

[viv1969]

I thought you were a dog person?

As a pet, definitely; but internet clips of cats invariably involve the falling off something. ..or into something....

 

[andya700]

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.

Therefore you condone letting people off if they have "exceptional" circumstances.
How many times do you let them off?
How many chances do they have?
What is the deterrant to be used on these "special" cases?
I have a very simple answer.
If you don't want a fine/ban then don't break the law.

 

[LCPete]

A: You need to read some more posts

B: Tongue in cheek

C: Why? Because thats exactly how things would have happened. You changing the speed at which you drove down that road would NOT have changed the actions of the toddler. The Toddler wouldn't have ran out at an earlier time because you were traveling at a faster speed. Unless you believe our fates are already set out for us. But even in that case the toddler would have ran out at earlier but you would have seen him from a greater distance and still would have managed to stop.

Sorry mate but you're talking out of your bum
I sort of see what your saying but can't get my head around what would have happened if I was doing 50 surely he would have been about 2 feet in front of me as I came past
I know you was tongue in cheek but surely with that logic we may as well drive around at 100 mph everywhere

 

[LCPete]

A little bit tongue in cheek but roads are for cars and the like, not people. Yes cars should not drive at silly speeds in built up areas but people need to take responsibility and teach kids road sense.

Yes agree with you there I've had people look at us then just walk out in front of us while we were driving through town

 

[cambsno]

Therefore you condone letting people off if they have "exceptional" circumstances.
How many times do you let them off?
How many chances do they have?
What is the deterrant to be used on these "special" cases?
I have a very simple answer.
If you don't want a fine/ban then don't break the law.

What about the parents who took their child out if hospital the other day. Broke the law but no way should they be punished.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Therefore you condone letting people off if they have "exceptional" circumstances.
How many times do you let them off?
How many chances do they have?
What is the deterrant to be used on these "special" cases?
I have a very simple answer.
If you don't want a fine/ban then don't break the law.

Not letting off. Just another punishment which is what he got. There's more to punishing road traffic offenses than banning from driving. Community pay back orders, fines etc.

 

[wack61]

What about the parents who took their child out if hospital the other day. Broke the law but no way should they be punished.

What law did they break , taking your child out of hospital isn't an offence unless there's a court order preventing it

 

[simonblue]

So Flintoff is a bit arrogant, he's self interested and a risk taker still to speed with 9 points on his licence! Sounds like a professional sportsman to me! Those are surely the exact mental attitudes we revere from the stands! Why we've heard of him and why he can afford a Bentley and a QC!

As for his crime. Are people truly offended by speeding? I'm offended by assaults and harm and thefts and public affray but I'm not offended by another driver ignoring an arbitrary number - which is all a speed limit actually is. As I've posted before, driving past a school at 3pm in the wet at 27mph is legal but infinitely less safe than driving past the same school at 37mph at 3am in the dry! I don't respect dangerous driving but that's not the same as speeding.

Equally here's a question for all the anti speeding brigade. If you stood on a motorway bridge and watched as a Bentley whooshed beneath you, just one car on its own, could you honestly, accurately say whether it was doing 69mph or 87mph? I think I'd probably struggle and I used to spend a lot of time watching cars drive past me and trying to identify their exact speed. Indeed att one time I was paid to do it!

I really don't feel envious or outraged that he wasn't banned from driving.

But at some point in are life's we have to grow up,and start accepting responsibly for are actions

 

[mattyg]

Sorry mate but you're talking out of your bum
I sort of see what your saying but can't get my head around what would have happened if I was doing 50 surely he would have been about 2 feet in front of me as I came past
I know you was tongue in cheek but surely with that logic we may as well drive around at 100 mph everywhere

At precisely 13:04 your riding down a road at 40 mph and a child ran out which you were able to stop for.
If you had been traveling at 50MPH you MAY (depending on the length of road and for how long you were doing 50mph) have reached the same point in the road that the child was going to run out but as you got there quicker so in turn earlier the child hadn't started running out yet. Hence the child would have run out after you had passed.

Thats what I meant originally.

Now if a different child on a different st at a different time runs into the road whilst you doing 50Mph but you only have the stopping distance at 40Mph then the kids gonna get flattened.

At 40mph it takes 90 sec to cover 1 mile
At 50mph it takes 72 sec to cover 1 mile

So lets assume the road you were on was a mile long. If you had been doing 50mph the kid would have run out approx 18 secs after you had driven past.


Wow I need t drop this.lol

 

[mattyg]

What law did they break , taking your child out of hospital isn't an offence unless there's a court order preventing it

I should think a number of child protection laws.

 

[mattyg]

But at some point in are life's we have to grow up,and start accepting responsibly for are actions

But he accepted responsibility for his actions. He just got a good QC to lesson the suffering.

If you drop your mobile phone do you just accept that you dropped it and let it hit the floor or do you attempt to catch it on the way down. To lesson the suffering

 

[viv1969]

What about the parents who took their child out if hospital the other day. Broke the law but no way should they be punished.

They should absolutely be punished, simply by the removal of said child.
Denying medical treatment for religious reasons, is unforgivable.

By all means make a reasoned decision based on all of the medical evidence and advice available. But when you make medical decisions based on any religious beliefs or mythical deities you abdicate the reasoning necessary to be a fit parent imo.

Edit....but that's a whole different thread entirely.

 

[mattyg]

Now ^^ this we definitely agree on

 

[nilagin]

They should absolutely be punished, simply by the removal of said child.
Denying medical treatment for religious reasons, is unforgivable.

By all means make a reasoned decision based on all of the medical evidence and advice available. But when you make medical decisions based on any religious beliefs or mythical deities you abdicate the reasoning necessary to be a fit parent imo.

Edit....but that's a whole different thread entirely.

From what I've read, they didn't remove their son for religious reasons, they wanted to go to another country to seek treatment for their son that the NHS were not willing to perform.

 

[viv1969]

From what I've read, they didn't remove their son for religious reasons, they wanted to go to another country to seek treatment for their son that the NHS were not willing to perform.

The child did not need to be removed and current treatment withheld for that to happen.

Children travel the world to receive treatments not offered by the NHS, but it's done with thought, planning and the best interests of the child are paramount.

Even you can't think that snatching the child from a hospital bed ama was the right way to seek alternative treatment?

As I said, toally different thread.

 

[nilagin]

The child did not need to be removed and current treatment withheld for that to happen.

Children travel the world to receive treatments not offered by the NHS, but it's done with thought, planning and the best interests of the child are paramount.

Even you can't think that snatching the child from a hospital bed ama was the right way to seek alternative treatment?

As I said, toally different thread.

But then you have to consider the mind set of the parents at a time like this, their son laying in a hospital bed with a tumour and the NHS refusing to give the boy a certain treatment, they are probably going through hell, they probably feel they responded in the best way possible for their son to get him the treatment he was being denied. Do you snatch the child and try to seek the treatment or risk the lengthy "Red Tape" processes to get their son released and transferred.
For as many stories out there of the NHS being the best thing since sliced bread, there are still many stories of the NHS letting people down and having to seek alternative treatment. Some cases are obviously more urgent than others.

 

[viv1969]

But then you have to consider the mind set of the parents at a time like this, their son laying in a hospital bed with a tumour and the NHS refusing to give the boy a certain treatment, they are probably going through hell, they probably feel they responded in the best way possible for their son to get him the treatment he was being denied. Do you snatch the child and try to seek the treatment or risk the lengthy "Red Tape" processes to get their son released and transferred.
For as many stories out there of the NHS being the best thing since sliced bread, there are still many stories of the NHS letting people down and having to seek alternative treatment. Some cases are obviously more urgent than others.

I understand the mind-set, but I simply repeat.....Children travel the world to receive treatments not offered by the NHS, but it's done with thought, planning and the best interests of the child are paramount.

 

[nilagin]

I understand the mind-set, but I simply repeat.....Children travel the world to receive treatments not offered by the NHS, but it's done with thought, planning and the best interests of the child are paramount.

The NHS offer the treatment in other countries. But you have to make an application to a panel to consider whether the candidate is worthy as the cost is £100k. The parents obviously felt that there was no time for the thought and planning the NHS system wanted to put into it whilst their son's life hangs in the balance. They obviously feel they responded in the best way they could, having to actually go on the run rather than just being allowed to remove their son and seek the treatment, just made matters worse. As I said, some cases are more urgent than others and time is of importance.

 

[Yves Geza]

This week we learnt that the State and the Public Sector used its Police Force against parents who had dared to object when their daughters were being raped in Rotherham!

It is not a good week to defend the State or the NHS using its Police Forces to enforce its values on other loving parents!

 

[simonblue]

This week we learnt that the State and the Public Sector used its Police Force against parents who had dared to object when their daughters were being raped in Rotherham!

It is not a good week to defend the State or the NHS using its Police Forces to enforce its values on other loving parents!

Something we can agree on

 

[cambsno]

What law did they break , taking your child out of hospital isn't an offence unless there's a court order preventing it

I assume they broke the law seeing as they had an arrest warrant on them!

 

[cambsno]

They should absolutely be punished, simply by the removal of said child.
Denying medical treatment for religious reasons, is unforgivable.

By all means make a reasoned decision based on all of the medical evidence and advice available. But when you make medical decisions based on any religious beliefs or mythical deities you abdicate the reasoning necessary to be a fit parent imo.

Edit....but that's a whole different thread entirely.

Could be totally wrong as not up to speed on the case, but I thought, sadly, the child had not much time left so they wanted to take him out.

God forbid any of us are in any similar situation, but any actions the parents take are done under the most horrible circumstances and so that surely must excuse this type of actions.

Maybe a better example to my original one is assisted dying. A number of people have killed a terminally ill loved one. It's against the law, it is murder, but they don't go to prison. A massive moral minefield but something that does happen.

 

[wack61]

I assume they broke the law seeing as they had an arrest warrant on them!

The media were at pains to point out that there was no suggestion they'd broken any law when they first removed him ,it was on every report that came on the TV for the first couple of days

They must have applied for a court order to issue an arrest warrant

 

[PaulF]

According to media reports today, the hospital had told the parents that they could do no more for the child.
So the parents removed him from hospital against the doctors advice/wishes but broke no law in doing so.
Travelled to Spain to sign the papers to sell an apartment they own to pay for treatment only available outside the UK.

Whilst I agree the child would most likely have been better off staying in hospital while the parents sorted the sale of property in Spain, I don't know the full details, maybe both parents had to sign etc.

I/we don't know all the facts and it's a shame that some people seem to jump to conclusions, often wrongly.

 

[camerassassin]

There were also accusations that the parents would have been unable to continue the feeding system as the batteries would have been dead. A video put up by his brother discounts that , and if he's accurate, it seems that equipment was supplied by the Hospital i.e. syringes.

The family , to my mind did not do this on the spur of the moment - they bought the required feeds off the Internet , got syringes , got an adaptor for use in the car so his feed pump continued to work . The have also bought a wheelchair for him.

As always - the press does not give the whole story - and the tendency is to jump to conclusions , based on what we are told , not all the facts.