One law for the rich and another…..

Moggy you complete arrogance amazes and shocks me at your posts on this topic.You broke the law and to quote you.

” to be fair I think the bench realised that at 0200 on a clear dry morning and a near-deserted motorway I wasn’t actually likely to cause an inordinate amount of distress to the general population.”

You are the same person who had an aircraft failure(apparently through no fault of your own) What if your car had a similar failure and flipped through the armco and killed others? Perhaps you will have learned your lesson and drive according to the law now.

You’re very unlikely to go to prison in the United Kingdom for driving without a valid licence, road tax or insurance; even if you are ‘fined’ the fine will be based on your ability to pay. If you are ‘poor’ the fine will be small and if you don’t have a licence, as you say, you can’t get points on it.

Statistically, surely, not being able to afford tax and insurance must be a major reason for not having it?

If a man is caught driving without a valid licence and who cannot afford a fine…

…the usual ‘punishment’ is to ban him from driving! :rolleyes:

No, he would be banned from driving anyway – no licence to drop the points on. ‘Usual’ punishment if fine is not paid is more likely to be prison, if it had not already been part of the punishment.

So can anyone show a case, where a poor person has been treated differently in similar circumstances?

A student I knew a long while back didn’t pay the road tax on his car and he got caught. He was fined less than he would have had to pay in road tax because he couldn’t afford more (although apparently he could afford beer, petrol and a car)!

I’ve often said that laws, particularly traffic laws, only punish the usually law-abiding.

If a man is caught driving without a valid licence and who cannot afford a fine…

…the usual ‘punishment’ is to ban him from driving! :rolleyes:

Hi All,
It’s not his actions but the defending of his actions that get under my skin, watch the video in the DONT LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU thread on this section of the forum that could easily have happened to moggy while he was speeding or anybody else for that matter no matter who speeds you cannot defend against it unless an emergency was occurring.
So because nobody was around it was o.k. then ? Well in that case how extreme can you take the law ? Well there was nobody around so I shot the ******** ?? Why are you getting personal Moggy ? You are the one who stated your history about getting off a speeding ban by having a barrister and IMHO would say you are only trying to persuade yourself that what you did was a good thing, you got court speeding nothing more nothing less.
Your use of a barrister was a means of effectively of using your workforce as mitigating circumstances for your own actions, I do wonder though had the tables been turned and it was one of your workforce that had been in the same position would you have the same frame of mind.
I agree my opinion counts for nothing, there is no need to start being personal because I counter your argument for a positive spin on what should have
been an straight forward guilty plea without need for a barrister and that is what this thread was concerned about people affording barristers just to evade a harsher punishment.

Geoff.

Like…Moggy, did you find a way to dodge paying all the tax on your high income…?;o)

Typical of many business owners when times become hard I had actually reduced my own income rather than lay people off.

I think at times it fell below the tax threshold altogether. So yes, I found a way, but wouldn’t recommend it.

Moggy

Dear Geoff

To be fair I think the bench realised that at 0200 on a clear dry morning and a near-deserted motorway I wasn’t actually likely to cause an inordinate amount of distress to the general population.

I think the bench took a more pragmatic approach to the offence than you seem to be doing.

But that’s OK, because their opinion matters, yours doesn’t.

Cheers

Moggy

BUT it was all in the past, it has happened and Moggy has learnt his lesson (ie, never mention anything personal on the forum), his debt to society has been seen to be repaid as demanded by the court, and he now drives at exactly five miles an hour below the speed limit, honest.

Berating him like this about his appalling driving habits really isn’t going to go anywhere, just let it be, find something else to moan about.

Like…Moggy, did you find a way to dodge paying all the tax on your high income…?;o)

Finding the money hurt. It was equivalent to my after tax earnings for a month. But without my licence it is likely that my earnings, and those of nearly thirty other people would have been reduced or ended. So the overdraft just became greater. I didn’t have the resources , but Natwest did.

Moggy.

Hi All,
You should have thought about your licence and the thirty other people who obviously rely on you before you stuck your toe down simple! If as you say their earnings were dependant on you, then you are guilty of being reckless with complete disregard for those other peoples lives even more so and not just your own because of your own actions.

Geoff.

With apologies for labouring the point and this will be my last word on the subject – in the real world your month’s net salary is several months’ salary for many and equally many do not even have the luxury of an overdraft.

Labour it some more – he could have generated some good will and employed a chauffeur for the twelve months he was off the road…;o)

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?

With apologies for labouring the point and this will be my last word on the subject – in the real world your month’s net salary is several months’ salary for many and equally many do not even have the luxury of an overdraft.

Finding the money hurt. It was equivalent to my after tax earnings for a month. But without my licence it is likely that my earnings, and those of nearly thirty other people would have been reduced or ended. So the overdraft just became greater. I didn’t have the resources , but Natwest did.

Moggy.

Your real world includes the resources to pay for a very expensive barrister. Those resources are not available in the real world for very many others, hence my original comment.

Join the real world.

I’m not quite sure I know what that is supposed to mean?

This is my real world. A twelve month ban would have been disastrous. I took action to avoid that and it worked. Simple as that.

Moggy

Bloody hell SNAFU.

I didn’t see you there.

Always tried my best not to catch the eye of those in the box – I never got offered money not to mention them, more usually empty threats of violence when they found out that they might get publicity.

Hi All,
What a load of tripe! You do not need a barrister to admit guilt end of and if you plead mitigating circumstances other than somebody who is bleeding out through injury, rushing a sick relative or your wife who is having a baby to hospital (Even then those excuses may not help) there are none simple as. You speed, get caught, get done ! Join the real world.

Geoff.

Did you brake in time Moggy?

Bloody hell SNAFU.

I didn’t see you there.

Moggy

I think you’ll find it went a little something like this…

Question:- How do you plead ?
Answer :- …

Barrister (rolls up left trouser leg to the knee revealing a single red sock with garter, puts right hand behind head with forearm horizontal but gently rotating his arm in a circular motion, anticlockwise, before winking with both eyes, one after the other, beginning with his left one): Milud, my client pleads guilty.

Judge (peers myopically through glasses at barrister; recognition slowly creeps in): Ah yes, mmm, I see. Well, I believe this fine, upstanding member of the community has shown that he deeply regrets his poor judgement in doing… (consults notes)…mmm, one hundred and ninety seven miles an hour through the village on market day, narrowly missing the local primary school children on a field trip and managing to jump the canal whilst reading a newspaper and conversing on his mobile telephone device. But since he has been shown to be an honest, mmm, and law abiding member of society I feel it is only right, not just right but also sensible to free this man into the loving arms of his wife, his two mistress’s and his bank manager; there would be no purpose served by depriving him of his driving licence since he would loose his job, mmm, and thereby not be able to give recompense to his law team. Case dismissed!

Barrister: My lord!

Judge: Oh alright. Ban him for twenty eight days…