Using a mobile phone when driving is okay...

[hackbike 666]

Can i take that as a yes or a no?
And im saying if you were in his situation, hypotheticly, so dont get so stressed, chum

I said no so how many more times do I have to say this?

 

[Joe24]

I said no so how many more times do I have to say this?

No you didnt, you had a little strop saying i dont know you or what you do so i cant comment.
So, your really saying that if you were about to lose your licence for some reason, any reason at all, not just using a mobile and you went to court, you would just say, "yeh ok i did it ban me" and you wouldnt say, "but i need my licence for my job"

Well, thats abit silly.

 

[hackbike 666]

No you didnt, you had a little strop saying i dont know you or what you do so i cant comment.
So, your really saying that if you were about to lose your licence for some reason, any reason at all, not just using a mobile and you went to court, you would just say, "yeh ok i did it ban me" and you wouldnt say, "but i need my licence for my job"

Well, thats abit silly.

What did I just say?

Yes I got a strop because you are a prize idiot.

 

[Joe24]

What did I just say?

Yes I got a strop because you are a prize idiot.

And i thought that sometimes i didnt make any sence
You have told me no once, when you had your little strop
Im actually smart-ish thanks.

 

[hackbike 666]

And i thought that sometimes i didnt make any sence
You have told me no once, when you had your little strop
Im actually smart-ish thanks.

I apologise for the idiot insult I should never have said that sorry.

 

[Crankarm]

Have I missed something, who's perverting the couse of justice ?

He is well within his rights to ask for the ban to be lifted if it causes undue hardship.

If it is genuinely a hardship then no. If it is not and he is just making up a pack of lies with his counsel then it would be perverting the course of justice or contempt of court. As far as I can see it would be merely an inconvenience than a harship as he claims he runs this Motocross place maintaining the track and operating heavy machinery. Whether he owns it as well is not clear so presumably he wouldn't be able to sack himself would he? Surely there are other members of staff who can give him a lift to the location of the maintenance machinery. The article states he only makes voluntary contributions to his ex wife who has custady of the kids. Sounds a bit fishy if you ask me. Why would you say voluntary contributions as opposed to being compelled by a financial arrangement or the CSA making you pay a sum each month? Well fishy. The ex wife probably maintains their kids with her income and or benefits and doesn't hold her breath when she is going to get the next donation from her ex Newton. Please.......... It all sounds very fishy indeed.

The judge should have more back bone. I'm sure the chap can do other things while he is serving his ban amd resume driving duties when he gets his license back. In September '06 he was convicted of speeding. Imagine all those occasions that he hasn't been caught when he has been speeding and using his phone . He is an accident waiting to happen. He will kill or seriously injure some one unless he is properly punished by disqualification, a large fine plus communtiy service.

ROSPA's comment is very measured and fitting.

 

[hackbike 666]

I bet there are a lot out there like that.

 

[Crankarm]

I bet there are a lot out there like that.

There are indeed. Saw 3 texting whilst driving in the space of 5 minutes at 5.20pm today and a podgy woman on the road that adjoins mine pulling up in her car onto her drive with a mobile glued to her ear. What do people find, are by far the majority of drivers you see using phones whilst driving fat? A large number seem to be fat to me.

 

[snorri]

So what your saying then, is if something did happen and you were about to lose your licence, the licence you need so you can work, you wouldnt use the excuse?
I very much doubt that

You are imagining things now, just stick to your original point.
You felt the guy deserved greater leniency, no one else on here agrees with you.

 

[Joe24]

You are imagining things now, just stick to your original point.
You felt the guy deserved greater leniency, no one else on here agrees with you.

No, because if it came to it, you would use the, "i need my licence for my job" excuse.
Face it, your a hypocrit and a pirate

 

[Joe24]

And next you will be having a go at me and saying i cant spell.
before saying you wouldnt, which is a lie because you would. I suspect most would give it a go.

 

[hackbike 666]

No, because if it came to it, you would use the, "i need my licence for my job" excuse.
Face it, your a hypocrit and a pirate

Are you User3143 in disguise because you got me going.

 

[Joe24]

Are you User3143 in disguise because you got me going.

HAHAHAHAAA!!!!
No, but i cant wait to see his reply when he sees this!!!!!

 

[Liddington]

Crankarm makes a good point about all the times he hasn't been caught. We know that only a tiny percentage of mobile phone offences result in a fine and points for the offender, the vast majority of people get away with it. So for this bloke to get caught 3 times in 5 months means that these were hardly likely to be isolated incidents but that he is out there constantly putting other road users at risk. One word - selfish. Ban him. No mercy.

 

[hackbike 666]

Well said.