# Caught speeding at 132mph?



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

just say you're Lee Bowyer and get off with 42 days ban and Â£650 fine (that must REALLY hurt his wallet).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4923108.stm

No offence to any Newcastle fans but this prick needs a long holiday at Guantanamo Bay

:twisted:


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag (Dec 13, 2005)

s3_lurker said:


> just say you're Lee Bowyer and get off with 42 days ban and Â£650 fine (that must REALLY hurt his wallet).
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4923108.stm
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more ,except when hes on the pitch


----------



## beastty (May 7, 2002)

How does that work then.

132 mph but coughed up to 99mph.

On that basis I was only just speeding but would have been let off on the 10% rule (see other thread)


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

Just seen him on the news - a vile chav hooligan who wants shooting. Looks even more of a yob in a suit than a football strip.
Would have loved it if he'd come to Birmingham though :?


----------



## renton72 (Feb 17, 2004)

WozzaTT said:


> Would have loved it if he'd come to Birmingham though :?


You done alright by not getting him. He played for West Ham the season they went down and didnt have a decent game. Money grabbing wank shite!


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag (Dec 13, 2005)

Turns out that the lines marked on the road where the police take their readings from were in the wrong place :roll:


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Just proves the fact it is one law for the rich who can get the best lawyer money can buy and another for the rest of us who just have to take it on the chin :evil:


----------



## The Silver Surfer (May 14, 2002)

Lee Bowyer=chav in a football strip. Unfortunately, he's not the only one.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

The Silver Surfer said:


> Lee Bowyer=chav in a football strip. Unfortunately, he's not the only one.


I would say that is about 90% of footballers


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Iâ€™m sure Iâ€™m going to get flamed for this, but this is me so Iâ€™ll say it anyway.

Why should a celeb or football player not get fined that amount of money? 
After all thatâ€™s what a normal person would get. Are we saying because he can afford it he should be fined more? If so what you are saying is justices is proportional to your earnings. IMO The law should make no distinction between someone whoâ€™s well off and someone whoâ€™s not. A crimes a crime and should judged as the same for all.

However I canâ€™t say I like him either but that doesnâ€™t make the above wrong.

Just my 2p.


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag (Dec 13, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> Iâ€™m sure Iâ€™m going to get flamed for this, but this is me so Iâ€™ll say it anyway.
> 
> Why should a celeb or football player not get fined that amount of money?
> After all thatâ€™s what a normal person would get. Are we saying because he can afford it he should be fined more? If so what you are saying is justices is proportional to your earnings. IMO The law should make no distinction between someone whoâ€™s well off and someone whoâ€™s not. A crimes a crime and should judged as the same for all.
> ...


When I was fined for careless driving  (a few years back) I had to take proof of earnings and expenditure with me so they could work out the fine so yes thats nowt for a footballer to be fined


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The proof of earnings which details things like your in's and outs is for if your choose not to pay/ask not to pay the whole fine in one go. This enables the magistrate/ clerk to the justices to workout what is reasonable for you to pay a week/month. However they (the court) ask for this info before you go to court to prevent delays in sentencing.


----------



## Jambo (Mar 23, 2006)

I agree with you Tosh but I think the main point is that if one of us non-famous people were caught doing a max 132MPH we'd be fined and banned for longer than 42 days straight away.

In saying that though, one of the Scandinavian countries work out your fine by your earnings. I remember one guy got fined a few hundred thousand euros because he earnt a few million a year a few years ago. Could be making up the fine though but it was a shitload  :roll:

It is just one rule for the rich and famous but in all fairness they CAN afford the best lawyers so they will find all the little loopholes because they're getting paid silly money to do so???


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Im not sure thats true. I was caught averaging 118mph on a motorway in 1999. I did not get a ban at all, but i did get a higher fine and 6 points.

Im not defending what hes done, did. IMO most poeple would have got the same regardless of their fame. Well im hoping they would or it just not fair and the law is wrong.


----------



## Jambo (Mar 23, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I was caught averaging 118mph on a motorway in 1999. I did not get a ban at all, but i did get a higher fine and 6 points.


Well you're fuckin lucky aren't you! I thought it was 100+ and a straight ban though? Perhaps they weren't so arsey seven years ago as they are now?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I went in my nun outfit and cried all the way through.


----------



## Irish Sancho (Mar 13, 2006)

Lucky he wasn't over here....he would have received a 1 year ban and a big fine.


----------



## beastty (May 7, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> Iâ€™m sure Iâ€™m going to get flamed for this, but this is me so Iâ€™ll say it anyway.
> 
> Why should a celeb or football player not get fined that amount of money?
> After all thatâ€™s what a normal person would get. Are we saying because he can afford it he should be fined more? If so what you are saying is justices is proportional to your earnings. IMO The law should make no distinction between someone whoâ€™s well off and someone whoâ€™s not. A crimes a crime and should judged as the same for all.
> ...


I'm doing a fair bit of research into this at the moment 

The guidance for over 30 mph over the limit is 3 to 6 points, 14 to 56 day ban and a Level 4 fine ie up to Â£2,500 depending on your ability to pay.

If this chav can't afford Â£2,500 then the guidelines aren't worth the paper they're written on (but I guess we knew this anyway)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

My fine wasnt that high.


----------



## beastty (May 7, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> My fine wasnt that high.


and I've got my fingers crossed


----------



## TTotal (Aug 12, 2002)

Think its bloody disgusting that he wasnt fined at least ten times that and banned for at least a year too, the twat sets a brilliant example to all the young and impresionable kids out there....

Aside from that the wanker will not have been on any driving courses teaching him how to control a vehicle at that speed...

:x


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Tosh, what is the objective of fines? Is it to punish the wrongdoer ot to compensate the state?

If it was to compensate the state, then it should be the same fine for all for the same offence, as the state has suffered the same whether you are rich or poor.

But it is to punish the wrongdoer. So no, it should not be the same for all. It because even more so when someone is given the option of a larger fine in place of a short ban / custodial sentence.

The Gumball Rally is a case in point. Spoilt twats speeding across europe getting fined a few hundred quid at most each time they are caught. You or I would slow down the first time, as that would be more than our pockets could take. But not so if you are stinking rich. Recently, some countries have started taking away our passport / driving licence until you leave the country, so it's not so easy to get away with it.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

So if a poor chap nicks your car and wraps it round a pole he should get a Â£5 fine as he canâ€™t afford much, but a better off person should be fined Â£500?

If thatâ€™s the case, i may as well put all my money in the wifes name or offshore it and go on a crime spree as the consequence of the crimes (if I got caught) would be reduced by my inability to be punished as im poor?

Murder is Murder, Rape is Rape, Theft is theft, speeding is speeding â€" and is a joke crime that in reality has very little consequence on others (Iâ€™m not talking about 90mph past a school, Iâ€™m talking the average normal Joe speeding).

I sure you will never get everyone to agree on this sort of emotive subject.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

No, because such a crime should command a custodial sentence.

But if a fine is the appropriate punishment, then yes he should be fined whatever is deemed to be the reasonable level, which may well be the equivalent of Â£500 for you or I.

The issue of hiding your wealth is one which is not restricted to means tested fines. If the powers that be decided that your relative wealth should be taken into account more widely, tracking of people's wealth would become more sophisticated, with better regulation of financial institutions (money laundering and proceeds of crime legislation already helps with this).

However, even without this, would you really hand your wife all your worldly goods if regularly being caught for offences resulting in heavy fines? There would be a pretty strong incentive for her to soon become your ex-wife. Not only how this could contradict all the financial planning you have done to keep the taxman at bay.

I think there is real scope to introduce means tested fines for where jail is not an option.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Karcsi said:


> the taxman


I should report you to the mods for swearing :lol:


----------



## TTotal (Aug 12, 2002)

Fuck off Tosh - this is the Flame Room matey :lol:


----------

