Vince Green Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 You have to realise he is a another victim of this fame game, huge pressure but huge rewards. Crash and burn if you fail, very publically too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 41 minutes ago, countryman said: And does the fine go back to worthy causes or lost in the government bank. The government i would assume. Quote So Where Does The Money Go? According to Simon Moon from This Is Money: “I spoke to the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Transport who told me the income from speeding fines goes into what is known as the Treasury's consolidated fund, which is a bit of jargon that really means the Government's own bank account.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldypigeonpopper Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 5 hours ago, ditchman said: think ive figured it out ant ...£86,000 paul mcartny...£1.2million the queen....£10million zuckenburg...£ 10billion me.....25p tony blair nothing....(and the policeman who stopped him is unable to give evidence as last wednesday he was found dead walking his dog with his wrists slashed) i think a deal was done with his agent and the judge/court...........20ths ban...and 250hrs community service....so he commuted the sum which was valued at £86,000...cause in 250 hrs of helping the needy he could have earnt 2.5 million........ thats sounds more like it... great post ditchman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mel b3 Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 9 hours ago, ditchman said: quite agree with you...and no one was hurt...just shook up..............................what i was debating was the staggering fine.........and how it was "worked" out.. I know ditchie ?. I think it was last year or maybe 2016 that the way people are fined changed, it changed to reflect your earnings ,so that no matter how much you earn ,it still hurts your pocket ( i wonder how much Elton John would get fined for flashing ?). I also agree with mung , he actually seems like a decent enough chap , but he's making some very bad choices, and those choices could have a massively detrimental effect on others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 10 hours ago, ordnance said: I don't think he should have being fined anymore that the average person, for me his earnings are irrelevant. He should have been imprisoned indefinitely. If you don't means test these fines they have little effect on people like "celebrities" and footballers who are vastly overpaid and would be no deterent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog1408 Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: He should have been imprisoned indefinitely. Yes, great idea. The U.K. Prisons would be full in 2 days, they can hardly cope now. Mind you we could double taxes to pay for new ones/staff etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 He’s a actor he played a good part in the courtroom and they feel for it bet he’s laughing all the way back to the pub drop in the ocean fine and punishment for him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sako751sg Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 As i would say to anyone that gets done for drink driving,hopefully he learns from this and it never happens again. Shouldnt be treated any different to the thousands and thousands who get done for the same offence and the lad obviously has demons to beat and heres hoping he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 The fine and ban are intended as 'punishment'. Someone posted earlier that the fine was based on 2/3 weekly income. For someone on low income, they will have little or no 'surplus', and probably no 'reserves', so I believe the court usually allows payment in weekly deductions. In other words - it will be a significant punishment as they will loose out to an very noticeable degree for some period and it will have a big impact (especially as insurance will also increase. For someone on a high income (stated to be £130,000 a week in this case), 2/3 fine can probably be easily paid without any hardship at all as they will still have £44,000 left for the week, and will also certainly have substantial 'reserves'. My feeling therefore is that 2/3 weeks income fine is a much harder punishment on a low (and probably average) income person - and little or no punishment to high and very high income individuals. Similarly a driving ban; a low income person will not be able to afford a chauffeur, and in many areas, public transport isn't available to support essential commuting etc., whereas a high income person can afford either taxi or chauffeur - and a very high income person probably already has a chauffeur driven vehicle available (or can easily get one). So once again, the punishment is much harsher on lower income individuals, and trivial for high income individuals. I do think that this is wrong, but I also accept that the publicity, and effect on his future prospects may (in the case of this individual in show business) be the biggest punishment. Whatever the differences in individual cases, drink driving is a completely avoidable and very thoughtless action - that can have massive consequences for totally innocent third parties - and so tough penalties should be applied that penalise all offenders as equally (in terms of impact) as possible. I do believe therefore that the penalties need to be harsher on those who can 'afford' to nullify and mitigate the punishment easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickeydredd Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 11 hours ago, ordnance said: I don't think he should have being fined anymore that the average person, for me his earnings are irrelevant. I agree. if it is justified then by the same token why not make every price tag earnings-related - because it is nonsensical. The "punishment" for drink-driving surely should not be based upon your earnings, how is that possibly thought to be a deterrent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 I’m not really sure a two-tier system would work, although I think a ban is a minor inconvenience for those who can afford a driver, and for those whom a vastly higher insurance premium is no deterrent either. There again, no system works for those who don’t care either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Scully said: I’m not really sure a two-tier system would work, although I think a ban is a minor inconvenience for those who can afford a driver, and for those whom a vastly higher insurance premium is no deterrent either. There again, no system works for those who don’t care either. I don't know how it would be worked in a practical way, but I don't much like the system where there is no real penalty for the very well to do. You are quite right in that some don't care: We all hear of cases of multiple repeat offences and drink driving whilst already under disqualification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Seadog1408 said: Yes, great idea. The U.K. Prisons would be full in 2 days, they can hardly cope now. Mind you we could double taxes to pay for new ones/staff etc. It would be a great deterrent. 1 hour ago, sako751sg said: As i would say to anyone that gets done for drink driving,hopefully he learns from this and it never happens again. Shouldnt be treated any different to the thousands and thousands who get done for the same offence and the lad obviously has demons to beat and heres hoping he does. He is a repeat offender, hasn't learned yet. 37 minutes ago, Mickeydredd said: I agree. if it is justified then by the same token why not make every price tag earnings-related - because it is nonsensical. The "punishment" for drink-driving surely should not be based upon your earnings, how is that possibly thought to be a deterrent? What do you suggest would be an appropriate deterrent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: It would be a great deterrent. He is a repeat offender, hasn't learned yet. What do you suggest would be an appropriate deterrent? Perhaps a base rate fine worked out on the average wage? those on average wage pay the normal fine, those under the average wage pay proportionally less, those over the average wage pay the base rate multiplied by how ever many times over the average wage the offender earns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 In the case of Ant it isn’t really a question of deterring him; he has a severe drink problem. The fact he is undergoing treatment indicates alcoholism and no matter of deterrents will deter that. It is an illness, an addiction, and if he, under the influence of drink, decides to get back behind the wheel, he will. Money has nothing to do with it. He is an addict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, Scully said: In the case of Ant it isn’t really a question of deterring him; he has a severe drink problem. The fact he is undergoing treatment indicates alcoholism and no matter of deterrents will deter that. It is an illness, an addiction, and if he, under the influence of drink, decides to get back behind the wheel, he will. Money has nothing to do with it. He is an addict. Yes most definitely a addict and showed with his actions he is a danger to public safety so prison seems the best place for him and for long enough to dry out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 Anyone caught and banned by the courts from driving, in relation to alcohol abuse, for a second time, who is medically classified as an alcoholic, should be banned for life, or until such time as they have proveably been alcohol free for five years! That would save lives and sort out a few alcoholics who drink drive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, panoma1 said: Anyone caught and banned by the courts from driving, in relation to alcohol abuse, for a second time, who is medically classified as an alcoholic, should be banned for life, or until such time as they have proveably been alcohol free for five years! That would save lives and sort out a few alcoholics who drink drive! But that’s the point I’m trying to make; if he’s addicted to alcohol a ban won’t make any difference to him. If he has access to a car he will use it if he wants to. A sister of my OH was banned from driving; it didn’t stop her. A Dr said he was amazed she could even crawl with the amount of alcohol blood samples suggested she had drunk. She never admitted she had a problem, other than a drunken whisper to my OH once, which she denied afterwards, when sober. A jail sentence or a secure clinic would do it, but without treatment for the addiction via admission from the alcoholic that they have a problem, it would unfortunately only last as long as the sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickeydredd Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: What do you suggest would be an appropriate deterrent? I have no idea, but a fine of 2/3 of one week's wages at his earnings level means nothing to him in the grand scheme of things. His estranged wife is about to take £30m off him allegedly so what impact will this fine have in comparison? Offences whilst under the influence is a tricky thing. If you drink-drive on say a one-off it could be argued that you only did it because you were under the influence of alcohol and as a law-abiding citizen you would not ordinarily break the law. This type of individual would probably get such a fright at what they had done in the morning that they would never repeat the offense. If you are a serial drink-driver then you are clearly a danger to society and should not be permitted to drive a vehicle. Alcoholics, are clearly ill and given they will probably be consistently over the limit to drive should also not be permitted to drive a vehicle. Anyone registered as an alcoholic, not a recovering one, should have their driving licence revoked until a GP can sign them off as "recovering" - a bit like if I went to the GP suffering from depression, I would have my FAC/SGC revoked. Interestingly, if you drink & drive the actual crime and sentence relates specifically to the alcohol. If you are drunk and punch, beat or stab somebody then the charge and sentence relate to the actual assault - the actual driver (excuse the pun) behind the offence does not form the crime. I've always thought this somewhat anomalous, but probably not hugely material! Edited April 17, 2018 by Mickeydredd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 Other than damaging his public image, a fine and a ban will not hurt him at all, he can afford both the fine and to pay a driver , his job doesn't depend on having a clean licence. Compared to the 'ordinary bloke' who could lose both his job and, subsequently, his house as a consequence of a DD ban. Then possibly not be able to get a job afterwards with DD on his licence. I think he got off light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 Anyone who drinks and drives gets off lightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Scully said: But that’s the point I’m trying to make; if he’s addicted to alcohol a ban won’t make any difference to him. If he has access to a car he will use it if he wants to. A sister of my OH was banned from driving; it didn’t stop her. A Dr said he was amazed she could even crawl with the amount of alcohol blood samples suggested she had drunk. She never admitted she had a problem, other than a drunken whisper to my OH once, which she denied afterwards, when sober. A jail sentence or a secure clinic would do it, but without treatment for the addiction via admission from the alcoholic that they have a problem, it would unfortunately only last as long as the sentence. Alcoholics don't necessarily stagger around or slur their words, they don't always drive like you think a drunk should either. I have spoken on here before about my good friend, now dead, who was a "functioning alcoholic". most of the time you would really never have known, even though he probably had a blood alcohol level high enough to put any ordinary person flat on their back. It took us a long time to fully cotton on to the extent of his drinking because he hid it so well. I believe now he had been on a bottle of whiskey a day for twenty, maybe even thirty years, AND WE NEVER KNEW! His wife knew but she kept it to herself. Why she never spoke out was never explained. It was only after he retired and had too much time on his hands that his drinking went up to two bottles a day and things started visibly falling apart, quite amazing if it wasn't so tragic It was me who grassed him up to the police. I don't think they handled it at all well but it got him off the road. He knew it was me and never spoke to me again till he died but I would do the same again. Edited April 17, 2018 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hodge911 Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 (edited) FIRST OF ALL I'LL SAY THAT I IN NO WAY AT ALL CONDONE WHAT HE HAS DONE ....... But I do believe that in my opinion the fine that has been imposed on him is absolutely ridiculous and his legal team should insist on an appeal to get it reduced ...... Yes he commited a terrible offence but there has been numerous cases where some little dope taking scrote high on whatever and drunk as a skunk has been caught after a life risking high speed chase after colliding with multiple vehicles and in some cases badly injuring people and they virtually get a slap on the wrist . With a fine that the tax payer picks up ..... Unbelievable how badly the judge got it wrong Edited April 17, 2018 by hodge911 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 1 minute ago, hodge911 said: FIRST OF ALL I'LL SAY THAT I IN NO WAY AT ALL CONDONE WHAT HE HAS DONE ....... But I do believe that in my opinion the fine that has been imposed on him is absolutely ridiculous and his legal team should insist on an appeal to get it reduced ...... Yes he commited a terrible offence but there has been numerous cases where some little dope taking scrote high on whatever and drunk as a skunk has been caught after a life risking high speed chase after colliding with multiple vehicles and in some cases badly injuring people and they virtually get a slap on the wrist . With a fine that the tax payer picks up ..... Unbelievable how badly the judge got it wrong I would have to totally disagree! The fine is large ......... but he is a very highly paid individual with huge resources. It will not be in the slightest bit difficult for him to pay, 4 days salary for him. I wish him a full recovery, but in my opinion he has got off with a court punishment that is trivial to him. The damage to his reputation is a more serious issue (in my view), but that was not the court. If you live 'in the public eye', reputations are easy pickings for the press and public opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 41 minutes ago, hodge911 said: FIRST OF ALL I'LL SAY THAT I IN NO WAY AT ALL CONDONE WHAT HE HAS DONE ....... But I do believe that in my opinion the fine that has been imposed on him is absolutely ridiculous and his legal team should insist on an appeal to get it reduced ...... Yes he commited a terrible offence but there has been numerous cases where some little dope taking scrote high on whatever and drunk as a skunk has been caught after a life risking high speed chase after colliding with multiple vehicles and in some cases badly injuring people and they virtually get a slap on the wrist . With a fine that the tax payer picks up ..... Unbelievable how badly the judge got it wrong Are you for real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.