Katie Price needs help

[glasgowcyclist]

Why is anyone insuring her?
The risks must be enormous.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Why is anyone insuring her?
The risks must be enormous.

Someone pays them enough I presume

 

[nogoodnamesleft]

A case for UK adopting the French VSP system.

For those not aware French "voiture sans permis" system they are vehicles you can drive without a driving license. So celebrities, footballers, etc. who get banned cannot use the "need to drive or my charity work" as an excuse not to be banned (they can do it in a VSP - which they won't for obvious reasons)

So for those repeating offenders, in addition to fines, bans, etc. after those have been paid, served, expunged they can only drive VSPs for eg 10 years.

nb in France whilst you can drive them without a license, expect to pay a lot for insurance

Whilst the VSP system is not an answer, to me it looks like it can help close of a lot of the loopholes in our system where if you've got money and an expensive lawyer and can concoct some fantasy excuse you don't suffer losing your license but get to repeat the offences again and again and again ...

 

[Alex321]

Whilst the VSP system is not an answer, to me it looks like it can help close of a lot of the loopholes in our system where if you've got money and an expensive lawyer and can concoct some fantasy excuse you don't suffer losing your license but get to repeat the offences again and again and again ...

I really don't understand how that happens. The guidelines are quite clear, if you have avoided a totting up disqualification, you cannot use those same grounds again for at least three years.

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/an...squalification/3-totting-up-disqualification/

I know it does happen, but there is really no excuse for the courts allowing it to.

 

[DRM]

A case for UK adopting the French VSP system.

For those not aware French "voiture sans permis" system they are vehicles you can drive without a driving license. So celebrities, footballers, etc. who get banned cannot use the "need to drive or my charity work" as an excuse not to be banned (they can do it in a VSP - which they won't for obvious reasons)

View attachment 804680

So for those repeating offenders, in addition to fines, bans, etc. after those have been paid, served, expunged they can only drive VSPs for eg 10 years.

nb in France whilst you can drive them without a license, expect to pay a lot for insurance

Whilst the VSP system is not an answer, to me it looks like it can help close of a lot of the loopholes in our system where if you've got money and an expensive lawyer and can concoct some fantasy excuse you don't suffer losing your license but get to repeat the offences again and again and again ...

She's not fit to be let out driving a kiddies pedal kart, never mind anything mechanically propelled, she needs LOCKING UP she needs to learn consequences, you deliberately keep breaking the law, you pay the price, she has never had to face up to anything, as far as I'm concerned the best punishment for her is to be totally ignored by any form of media

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

She's not fit to be let out driving a kiddies pedal kart, never mind anything mechanically propelled, she needs LOCKING UP she needs to learn consequences, you deliberately keep breaking the law, you pay the price, she has never had to face up to anything, as far as I'm concerned the best punishment for her is to be totally ignored by any form of media

Put her in jail and she will probably use "the experience" to make a documentary for some online "channel" or something

 

[Bonefish Blues]

She's not fit to be let out driving a kiddies pedal kart, never mind anything mechanically propelled, she needs LOCKING UP she needs to learn consequences, you deliberately keep breaking the law, you pay the price, she has never had to face up to anything, as far as I'm concerned the best punishment for her is to be totally ignored by any form of media

That would be effective whilst she was locked up.

 

[nogoodnamesleft]

The guidelines are quite clear, if you have avoided a totting up disqualification, you cannot use those same grounds again for at least three years.

My understanding or view is that with the VSP system there would be no "avoiding disqualification" as you can still "transport", just that it's a lot lot slower and gives all your social media followers a good laugh.

 

[nogoodnamesleft]

The example I often think about with avoidance of bans is Steve Coogan

In February 2016, he was fined £670 and banned from driving for 28 days after being caught speeding in Brighton. In August 2019, he escaped the usual six-month ban for a further speeding offence as his next TV series depended on his ability to drive; he was given a two-month ban and a £750 fine. He was again spared six penalty points and a six-month ban for speeding in February 2025, reduced to five points and two months as a longer ban would have prevented filming of a new series of The Trip, which would have affected the many people involved.
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Coogan#Personal_life)

When his repeated "excuse" and avoidance of a ban seems "would have prevented filming of a new series" and "his next TV series depended on his ability to drive. But a VSP would have made those excuses void and the ban could have gone ahead.

 

[Fastpedaller]

The example I often think about with avoidance of bans is Steve Coogan

When his repeated "excuse" and avoidance of a ban seems "would have prevented filming of a new series" and "his next TV series depended on his ability to drive. But a VSP would have made those excuses void and the ban could have gone ahead.

Or how about 'allowing' this repeat, but only if he gives £2million to a charity decided by the Judge!

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Or how about 'allowing' this repeat, but only if he gives £2million to a charity decided by the Judge!

Either he's safe to drive or he isn't, shirley?

 

[nogoodnamesleft]

Or how about 'allowing' this repeat, but only if he gives £2million to a charity decided by the Judge!

I don't fully appreciate use of smileys (or lack of them) but you do raise an important aspect of justice and punishment being determined by wealth. I don't follow court cases etc. but maybe your boy racer in their rather old hot hatch with perforated exhaust silencer would be receiving harsher punishment (from an impact of their life perspective) than somebody who can pay large legal bills and then a significantly increased fine as the alternative to offset not being banned.

 

[Alex321]

Or how about 'allowing' this repeat, but only if he gives £2million to a charity decided by the Judge!

Somebody who could afford that couldn't possibly argue any "exceptional hardship" in the first place, since they can easily afford to pay for taxis, or even a chauffeur for the period of their ban.

 

[Alex321]

The example I often think about with avoidance of bans is Steve Coogan

When his repeated "excuse" and avoidance of a ban seems "would have prevented filming of a new series" and "his next TV series depended on his ability to drive. But a VSP would have made those excuses void and the ban could have gone ahead.

Well actually it probably wouldn't in his case, if driving was actually necessary part of the series. But I agree that in the vast majority of cases, it would.

I notice there is over three years between each instance too, which is how come he was able to use the same again

 

[postman]

Goodness this post is what four and a half years old,a lot has happened i think the score is 4 marriages 9 engagements and 7 motoring bans,and it's only April 2026.