One law for the rich and another…..

I once passed a pedestrian walking along a country road (no pavement) with his back to the traffic; the road had trees down one side and long grass on either verge. It was dusk and the pedestrian was wearing a dark green ‘shooting’ jacket, camouflage trousers, camouflage gaiters and a dark green hat; he also had a full-face beard!…

My second eldest came back from a night exercise with her air cadets earlier this year and casually muttered a tale of some stupid staff member driving their mini bus down a sunken lane at night, with no lights on, trying to find but nearly running over several cadets – in camo – and insisting that it was all just a good laugh. She begged me not to raise the subject with her CO since she is up for promotion and been told by others not to rock the boat; must say that I feel much less confident in their supervising capabilities now.

Thank you Gentlemen for the answer. As an aside I wonder if Moggy will be “speaking in tongues” next?

Sorry perhaps I should have said chrs m8’s orشكرا لك م سادتي

Re 47

Paul

It is mathematical shorthand meaning, ‘more than’.

They you go Paul.
http://www.mathsisfun.com/equal-less-greater.html
I had to look it up 😎

I am still waiting for Moggy to answer my question at#47 or perhaps his Barrister would do so for me?

I don’t think there are any “green-coated eyeballs” imvolved, at least not from this quarter. I was never trying to personalise it, merely making an observation which, so far, I have not seen refuted, with any confidence. I don’t know any poor people with Bentleys or Mercedes…..

Well said Edgar.

Then again nobody answered my question post 30.

This thread is titled. One law for the rich and another…….
So can anyone show a case, where a poor person has been treated differently in similar circumstances?

Quite frankly, I’m surprised that this thread hasn’t turned green thanks to the rampant envy and jealousy on display. The talk is of “the millionaire” Andrew Flintoff, conveniently forgetting that he was treated as a hero when he was knocking seven bells out of the opposition; now we find that he has committed the unpardonable sin, not just of making money while wrecking his body at his chosen sport, but (oh, the horror of it) actually keeping some of it for himself and his family.
We also have a site moderator, who broke the law, didn’t lie in court, but had the temerity to borrow some money and use it in a gamble to employ an advocate to plead his case (it’s what they’re there for.) It worked, in a fashion, and he got a reduced sentence (but “got away with it” sounds so much better, even if blatantly untrue.) We are, of course, then treated to “what-ifs” of various scenarios/accidents (which didn’t happen,) even with drunks weaving down the road asking to be hit (on a brightly-lit motorway at 2a.m?)
In the link, so thoughtfully provided by CD, it mentions that magistrates (and judges) have the ability to use their discretion, and that’s what they did in these two cases; however much you might hate the idea, it happens, and not just to people with money (try attending courts, and see real life in action, but without using green-coated eyeballs.)

I think that once you reach twelve points you should lose your license…

…well, twenty, thirty or forty points at least!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23967547

The cops know all about ‘excessive speeding’. They kill a few hapless burghers each year always with the unarguable mantra – of course no one knows differently – that they were on some kind of emergency call.

it makes you wonder what are the factors in the 75% of fatal accidents where ‘excessive speed’ was not a factor?

Not bloody concentrating on the primary activity (driving a car) would be my guess!

A significant proportion of which would have text messaging (reading or typing) at the root.

Inappropriate speed is an accident maker, that can’t be denied. My advanced bike instructor taught me about ‘The Elephant’. That is, always to ride / drive as if there was a near certainty that just round that next bend there is an elephant lying in the road. Just a graphic trick to reinforce the “drive within your stopping distance” rule.

Moggy

To return to the millionaire Mr Flintoff, while he may have kept his license I`m sure that the £330 fine is really going to hurt him !

Personally I think that once you reach twelve points you should lose your license because lets face it, you don`t go from zero points to twelve in one fell swoop and if you are careless enough to amass twelve points you deserve to lose your license.
If there was no appeal process when you reach twelve points it would be a level playing field for everyone and perhaps people might drive a bit more carefully.

…a fabulous way to meet wasted holiday makers in the dark wearing dark clothing dicing with death…

I once passed a pedestrian walking along a country road (no pavement) with his back to the traffic; the road had trees down one side and long grass on either verge. It was dusk and the pedestrian was wearing a dark green ‘shooting’ jacket, camouflage trousers, camouflage gaiters and a dark green hat; he also had a full-face beard!

I didn’t see him until I was about twenty-five feet from him, and he was walking towards me (I saw his face first); instinctively I went to brake, but I’d passed him before I even managed to apply the brakes. If I’d been travelling in the other direction I’d have killed him.

I turned round, with some difficulty, and went back to advise him that nobody could see him in his camouflage clothing and what danger he was in. I pulled alongside him and wound down the passenger window; he was quite an old chap and I got a cheery ‘mind your own bloody business!’ for my trouble.

If I’d have killed him, or put him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life…

…do you think he’d have thought it was my business then?

Do you not understand the significance of the ‘>’ ?

Moggy

No actually I don’t, maybe it is my age please enlighten me:o

Not endorsing breaking the speed-limit, and certainly not endorsing ‘excessive speed’, but it makes you wonder what are the factors in the 75% of fatal accidents where ‘excessive speed’ was not a factor?

Not bloody concentrating on the primary activity (driving a car) would be my guess!

Weather?
Medical problems?
Mechanical defects?

I’m guessing that things like truckers falling asleep at the wheel and ploughing into lanes of stopped traffic might be classified as excessive speed for the road conditions. Same with a fatal coach crash in 2012 on the A3 at Hindhead, that had a nearly 20 year old tyre which failed (most of it’s tyres were fairly old – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23320526); was the coach going too fast to be controlled in the event of the blow out that eventually occurred, or should it be down to mechanical failure?

As for Moggy and his speeding, and with that motorcycle video in mind…what about zipping along at warp factor 70+mph, in the dark, and coming across some (probably) drunken idiot weaving their way between the white lines in the middle of the road? Over the years I’ve encountered several loonies who seemed to enjoy living dangerously after getting fairly tipsy – most memorably to me being the road between Blue Anchor and Watchet, in Somerset; a lovely narrow and enclosed road which used to be (might still be) the only route between one or two camping/caravan sites and the nearest pub, and a fabulous way to meet wasted holiday makers in the dark wearing dark clothing dicing with death…

I was watching a programme on the telly the other day (so it must be true) that quoted that ‘25% of fatal accidents were the result of excessive speed’. This often gets translated to ‘speeding’ but it was a quote from one of the Police Forces and they are more aware than most about accurate statements; in fact, I think the actual quote was ‘excessive speed was a factor in 25% of fatal accidents’. Not necessarily the sole cause. (Not sure about non-fatal accidents.)

And given that ‘excessive speed’ must also factor-in accidents primarily caused by ice, snow, rain, fog and all sorts of other factors such as blind-bends, blind-junctions and so on, ‘excessive’ speeds could include a lot of speeds that are well below the speed-limit in force at the time.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is, if even the Police (who surely must be trying to discourage speeding) can only say that ‘excessive speed’ (not necessarily breaking the speed-limit) was only a ‘factor’ in 25% of fatal accidents, then the number of fatal accidents caused by breaking the speed-limit must be lower, possibly much lower, than that.

Not endorsing breaking the speed-limit, and certainly not endorsing ‘excessive speed’, but it makes you wonder what are the factors in the 75% of fatal accidents where ‘excessive speed’ was not a factor?

Not bloody concentrating on the primary activity (driving a car) would be my guess!

I doubt you were nicked for 70.001 Moggy

Do you not understand the significance of the ‘>’ ?

Moggy

He, who is without sin, cast the first stone !

I doubt you were nicked for 70.001 Moggy

Sorry, been away for the weekend and just catching up.

So what you are saying is that had I been travelling at 69.9 mph and this mysterious failure of the vehicle had happened and others had died, this would have been fine and dandy?

But because I was travelling at >70.001 mph it was all down to me and my arrogance?

Moggy